> The changes in semaphore semantics are necessary to fix the spurious out of
> memory with MAP_SHARED mappings and they came together with the removal of the
> always-asynchronous kpiod. While it's certainly possible to remove it I don't
> think removing the fix for MAP_SHARED stuff is a good idea.
How hard is it to seperate losing kpiod (optimisation) from the MAP_SHARED
changes ? I am assuming they are two seperate issues, possibly wrongly
> Basically it's always safe to replace:
>
> down(&inode->i_sem);
> /* critical section */
> up(&inode->isem);
>
> with the new fs-semaphore:
>
> fs_down(&inode->i_sem);
> /* critical section */
> fs_up(&inode->i_sem);
Providing no inode semaphore is upped from a different task , which seems
currently quite a valid legal thing to do (ditto doing the up on completion of
something in bh or irq context)
Alan
-
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 : Fri Dec 15 2000 - 21:00:32 EST