Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: change mmap_sem over to the scalable rw_mutex

[Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>]

On Fri, May 11, 2007 at 11:08:24AM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007 19:12:16 +0200
> Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> 
> > (now with reply-all)
> > 
> > On Fri, 2007-05-11 at 09:17 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Fri, 11 May 2007 15:15:43 +0200 Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > -	down_write(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> > > > +	rw_mutex_write_lock(&current->mm->mmap_lock);
> > > 
> > > y'know, this is such an important lock and people have had such problems
> > > with it and so many different schemes and ideas have popped up that I'm
> > > kinda thinking that we should wrap it:
> > > 
> > > 	write_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > 	write_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > 	read_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > 	read_unlock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm);
> > > 
> > > so that further experimentations become easier?
> > 
> > Sure, can do; it'd require a few more functions than these, but its not
> > too many. However, what is the best way to go about such massive rename
> > actions? Just push them through quickly, and make everybody cope?
> 
> Well, if we _do_ decide to do this (is anyone howling?) then we can do
> 
> static inline void write_lock_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> 	down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> }

I think that would be fine to do.

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>