From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by baldur.austin.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.9/Debian-3) with ESMTP id h4SMA6FA024590 for ; Wed, 28 May 2003 17:10:07 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 17:10:06 -0500 From: Dave McCracken Subject: Re: Question about locking in mmap.c Message-ID: <133810000.1054159806@baldur.austin.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <33460000.1054135672@baldur.austin.ibm.com> References: <33460000.1054135672@baldur.austin.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linux Memory Management List-ID: --On Wednesday, May 28, 2003 10:27:52 -0500 Dave McCracken wrote: > My question is what is page_table_lock supposed to be protecting against? > Am I wrong that mmap_sem is sufficient to protect against concurrent > changes to the vmas? I decided one way to find out was to remove the page_table_lock from mmap. I discovered one place it protects against is vmtruncate(), so it's definitely needed as it stands. I got an oops in zap_page_range() called from vmtruncate(). Dave McCracken ====================================================================== Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059 dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: aart@kvack.org