From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2002 10:55:25 -0500 From: Dave McCracken Subject: Re: install_page() lockup Message-ID: <65490000.1035388525@baldur.austin.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton Cc: "linux-mm@kvack.org" List-ID: --On Wednesday, October 23, 2002 08:49:11 +0200 Ingo Molnar wrote: > i added install_page() for fremap()'s purposes so i'd be surprised if > anything else used it. I have shared-pte turned off in my tests, will try > with it on as well. As I sent in an earlier mail, I found the bug. do_file_page needs to unlock the pte_page_lock, not the page_table_lock. If I understand the use of install_page correctly, I don't see a reason why it should be calling pte_unshare. If it's only installing pages from existing shared regions it should leave the pte page shared. The only reason to call pte_unshare is if the vma for that mm has changed, making the sharing decision invalid. Am I missing how this is being used? Dave McCracken ====================================================================== Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059 dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059 -- 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/