From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:57:27 +0200 From: Nick Piggin Subject: RRe: [patch 6/6] mm: fix pagecache write deadlocks Message-ID: <20061015155727.GA539@wotan.suse.de> References: <20061013143516.15438.8802.sendpatchset@linux.site> <20061013143616.15438.77140.sendpatchset@linux.site> <1160912230.5230.23.camel@lappy> <20061015115656.GA25243@wotan.suse.de> <1160920269.5230.29.camel@lappy> <20061015141953.GC25243@wotan.suse.de> <1160927224.5230.36.camel@lappy> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1160927224.5230.36.camel@lappy> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Linux Memory Management , Neil Brown , Anton Altaparmakov , Chris Mason , Linux Kernel , Andrew Morton , ralf@linux-mips.org, David Howells List-ID: On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 05:47:03PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > > And we should really decouple it from preempt entirely, in case we > > ever want to check for it some other way in the pagefault handler. > > How about we make sure all kmap_atomic implementations behave properly > and make in_atomic true. Hmm, but you may not be doing a copy*user within the kmap. And you may want an atomic copy*user not within a kmap (maybe). I think it really would be more logical to do it in a wrapper function pagefault_disable() pagefault_enable()? ;) -- 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: email@kvack.org