Re: [patch 02/10] emm: notifier logic

[Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>]

On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:

> > > My mm_lock solution makes all rcu serialization an unnecessary
> > > overhead so you should remove it like I already did in #v11. If it
> > > wasn't the case, then mm_lock wouldn't be a definitive fix for the
> > > race.
> > 
> > There still could be junk in the cache of one cpu. If you just read the 
> > new pointer but use the earlier content pointed to then you have a 
> > problem.
> 
> There can't be junk, spinlocks provides semantics of proper memory
> barriers, just like rcu, so it's entirely superflous.
> 
> There could be junk only if any of the mmu_notifier_* methods would be
> invoked _outside_ the i_mmap_lock and _outside_ the anon_vma and
> outside the mmap_sem, that is never the case of course.

So we use other locks to perform serialization on the list chains? 
Basically the list chains are protected by either mmap_sem or an rmap 
lock? We need to document that.

In that case we could also add an unregister function.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Register now and save $200. Hurry, offer ends at 11:59 p.m., 
Monday, April 7! Use priority code J8TLD2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/javaone