From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Stephen C. Tweedie" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14340.24096.808136.514437@dukat.scot.redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 11:25:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: locking question: do_mmap(), do_munmap() In-Reply-To: References: <14338.25285.780802.755159@dukat.scot.redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Alexander Viro Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" , Manfred Spraul , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-kernel@vger.rutgers.edu, Ingo Molnar , linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Hi, On Mon, 11 Oct 1999 18:31:37 -0400 (EDT), Alexander Viro said: > And spinlock being released in the ->swapout() is outright ugly. OK, so > we are adding to mm_struct a new semaphore (vma_sem) and getting it around > the places where the list is modified + in the swapper (for scanning). In > normal situation it will never give us contention - everyone except > swapper uses it with mmap_sem already held. Are there any objections > against it? If it's OK I'll go ahead and do it. Comments? Looks OK as long as the swapper remains non-recursive and we never, ever allocate memory outside the swapper with vma_sem held. --Stephen -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/