From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail144.messagelabs.com (mail144.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.51]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with SMTP id C1B0D6B003D for ; Fri, 27 Mar 2009 03:55:49 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:05:27 -0700 (PDT) Message-Id: <20090327.010527.201900502.davem@davemloft.net> Subject: Re: tlb_gather_mmu() and semantics of "fullmm" From: David Miller In-Reply-To: <1238134235.20197.64.camel@pasglop> References: <1238133267.20197.56.camel@pasglop> <20090326.225744.250374539.davem@davemloft.net> <1238134235.20197.64.camel@pasglop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: benh@kernel.crashing.org Cc: hugh@veritas.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, torvalds@linux-foundation.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, npiggin@suse.de, jeremy@goop.org List-ID: From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 17:10:35 +1100 [ zach@vmware.com removed from CC:, it bounces... ] > So if you test current->mm, you effectively account for mm_users == 1, > so the only way the mm can be active on another processor is as a lazy > mm for a kernel thread. So your test should work properly as long > as you don't have a HW that will do speculative TLB reloads into the > TLB on that other CPU (and even if you do, you flush-on-switch-in should > get rid of any crap here). It seems that way. I'll make this fix, thanks Ben! -- 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