From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail203.messagelabs.com (mail203.messagelabs.com [216.82.254.243]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 80CD962008B for ; Wed, 5 May 2010 11:34:20 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 5 May 2010 08:31:42 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm,migration: Prevent rmap_walk_[anon|ksm] seeing the wrong VMA information In-Reply-To: <20100505145620.GP20979@csn.ul.ie> Message-ID: References: <1273065281-13334-1-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <1273065281-13334-2-git-send-email-mel@csn.ul.ie> <20100505145620.GP20979@csn.ul.ie> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org To: Mel Gorman Cc: Andrew Morton , Linux-MM , LKML , Minchan Kim , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Christoph Lameter , Andrea Arcangeli , Rik van Riel List-ID: On Wed, 5 May 2010, Mel Gorman wrote: > > rmap_walk() appears to be the only one that takes multiple locks but it itself > is not serialised. If there are more than one process calling rmap_walk() > on different processes sharing the same VMAs, is there a guarantee they walk > it in the same order? So I had this notion of the list always getting deeper and us guaranteeing the order in it, but you're right - that's not the 'same_anon_vma' list, it's the 'same_vma' one. Damn. So yeah, I don't see us guaranteeing any ordering guarantees. My bad. That said, I do wonder if we could _make_ the ordering reliable. I did that for the 'same_vma' one, because I wanted to be able to verify that chains were consistent (and we also needed to be able to find the "oldest anon_vma" for the case of re-instantiating pages that migth exist in multiple different anon_vma's). Any ideas? Linus -- 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: email@kvack.org