Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2000 03:33:37 -0800
From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Given that we don't have a 64-bit atomic_t type, what do people
think of Davej's patch? (attached, below)
Broken, in 9 out of 10 places where he adds page_table_lock
acquisitions, this lock is already held --> instant deadlock.
This report is complicated by the fact that people were forgetting
that vmlist_*_{lock,unlock}(mm) was actually just spin_{lock,unlock}
on mm->page_table_lock. I fixed that already by removing the dumb
vmlist locking macros which were causing all of this confusion.
Are you saying that the original bug report may not actually be a
problem? Is ms->rss actually protected in _all_ of the right places, but
people got confused because of the syntactic sugar?
- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 07 2000 - 21:00:13 EST