From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759410AbYEHBMw (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 21:12:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1753778AbYEHBMk (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 21:12:40 -0400 Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.171.30]:45269 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751285AbYEHBMi (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 May 2008 21:12:38 -0400 Date: Wed, 7 May 2008 18:12:32 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter X-X-Sender: clameter@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com To: Linus Torvalds cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , steiner@sgi.com, holt@sgi.com, npiggin@suse.de, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, kanojsarcar@yahoo.com, rdreier@cisco.com, swise@opengridcomputing.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@qumranet.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org, hugh@veritas.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, aliguori@us.ibm.com, chrisw@redhat.com, marcelo@kvack.org, dada1@cosmosbay.com, paulmck@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <6b384bb988786aa78ef0.1210170958@duo.random> <20080507212650.GA8276@duo.random> <20080507222205.GC8276@duo.random> <20080507153103.237ea5b6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080507224406.GI8276@duo.random> <20080507155914.d7790069.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080507233953.GM8276@duo.random> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 7 May 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > and you're now done. You have your "mm_lock()" (which still needs to be > renamed - it should be a "mmu_notifier_lock()" or something like that), > but you don't need the insane sorting. At most you apparently need a way > to recognize duplicates (so that you don't deadlock on yourself), which > looks like a simple bit-per-vma. Andrea's mm_lock could have wider impact. It is the first effective way that I have seen of temporarily holding off reclaim from an address space. It sure is a brute force approach.