From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from penguin.e-mind.com (penguin.e-mind.com [195.223.140.120]) by kvack.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA00115 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 1998 13:45:52 -0500 Date: Wed, 2 Dec 1998 19:32:56 +0100 (CET) From: Andrea Arcangeli Reply-To: Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: Update shared mappings In-Reply-To: <199812021621.QAA04235@dax.scot.redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: "Stephen C. Tweedie" Cc: Zlatko.Calusic@CARNet.hr, Linux-MM List , Andi Kleen List-ID: On Wed, 2 Dec 1998, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote: >else's mm semaphore. If you have two processes doing that to each other >(ie. two processes mapping the same file r/w and doing msyncs), then you >can most certainly still deadlock. The thing would be trivially fixable if it would exists a down_trylock() that returns 0 if the semaphore was just held. I rejected now the update_shared_mappings from my tree in the meantime though. I have a question. Please consider only the UP case (as if linux would not support SMP at all). Is it possible that while we are running inside sys_msync() and another process has the mmap semaphore held? Stephen I read some emails about a PG_dirty flag. Could you tell me some more about that flag? Andrea Arcangeli -- This is a majordomo managed list. To unsubscribe, send a message with the body 'unsubscribe linux-mm me@address' to: majordomo@kvack.org