From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 09:56:15 -0500 Message-Id: <200011031456.JAA21492@tsx-prime.MIT.EDU> From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" In-reply-to: David S. Miller's message of Fri, 3 Nov 2000 03:33:37 -0800, <200011031133.DAA10265@pizda.ninka.net> Subject: Re: BUG FIX?: mm->rss is modified in some places without holding the page_table_lock Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: "David S. Miller" Cc: davej@suse.de, torvalds@transmeta.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: Given that we don't have a 64-bit atomic_t type, what do people think of Davej's patch? (attached, below) Broken, in 9 out of 10 places where he adds page_table_lock acquisitions, this lock is already held --> instant deadlock. This report is complicated by the fact that people were forgetting that vmlist_*_{lock,unlock}(mm) was actually just spin_{lock,unlock} on mm->page_table_lock. I fixed that already by removing the dumb vmlist locking macros which were causing all of this confusion. Are you saying that the original bug report may not actually be a problem? Is ms->rss actually protected in _all_ of the right places, but people got confused because of the syntactic sugar? - Ted -- 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.eu.org/Linux-MM/