From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 11:46:43 -0400 (EDT) From: "Benjamin C.R. LaHaise" Subject: Re: active_mm & SMP & TLB flush: possible bug In-Reply-To: <379EF7D0.375C78A4@colorfullife.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: masp0008@stud.uni-sb.de Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Wed, 28 Jul 1999, Manfred Spraul wrote: > if these 2 CPU switch their roles, then we use an outdates > TLB cache. You're right, thankfully it's fixed in 2.3.12-8 (meaning that my dual finally stops SIGSEGVing random processes). > BTW, where can I find more details about the active_mm implementation? > specifically, I'd like to know why active_mm was added to > "struct task_struct". > >From my first impression, it's a CPU specific information > (every CPU has exactly one active_mm, threads which are not running have > no > active_mm), so I'd have used a global array[NR_CPUS]. That soulds like a good idea -- care to offer a patch? =) -ben -- Hi! I'm Signature Virus 99! Copy me into your .signature and join the fun! -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://humbolt.geo.uu.nl/Linux-MM/