From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sat, 31 May 2003 16:51:23 -0700 From: "Paul E. McKenney" Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Convert do_no_page() to a hook to avoid DFS race Message-ID: <20030531235123.GC1408@us.ibm.com> Reply-To: paulmck@us.ibm.com References: <20030530164150.A26766@us.ibm.com> <20030530180027.75680efd.akpm@digeo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030530180027.75680efd.akpm@digeo.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, hch@infradead.org List-ID: On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 06:00:27PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > "Paul E. McKenney" wrote: > > There > > is still an inlined do_no_page() wrapper due to the fact that > > do_anonymous_page() requires that the mm->page_table_lock be > > held on entry, while the ->nopage callouts require that this > > lock be dropped. > > I sugest you change the ->nopage definition so that page_table_lock is held > on entry to ->nopage, and ->nopage must drop it at some point. This gives > the nopage implementations some more flexibility and may perhaps eliminate > that special case? Will do! > > This patch is untested. > > I don't think there's a lot of point in making changes until the code which > requires those changes is accepted into the tree. Otherwise it may be > pointless churn, and there's nothing in-tree to exercise the new features. A GPLed use of these DFS features is expected Real Soon Now... Thanx, Paul -- 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