From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from luxury.wat.veritas.com ([10.10.185.105]) (980 bytes) by megami via sendmail with P:esmtp/R:smart_host/T:smtp (sender: ) id for ; Mon, 16 Jun 2003 02:29:23 -0700 (PDT) (Smail-3.2.0.101 1997-Dec-17 #15 built 2001-Aug-30) Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2003 10:30:43 +0100 (BST) From: Hugh Dickins Subject: Re: use_mm/unuse_mm correctness In-Reply-To: <20030616121322.A10735@in.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Suparna Bhattacharya Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: On Mon, 16 Jun 2003, Suparna Bhattacharya wrote: > > However, in the aio case, use_mm and unuse_mm are called > only by workqueue threads, so there shouldn't be any > migration even if a pre-empt occurs (cpus_allowed is fixed > to a particular cpu), should it ? Ah, yes, I certainly hope the cpu can't change in such a case! Sorry for the noise, I hope someone else can help, Hugh -- 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: aart@kvack.org