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

[Christoph Lameter]

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.

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/