From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933246Ab0ECQjY (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 12:39:24 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:59246 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1759329Ab0ECQjX (ORCPT ); Mon, 3 May 2010 12:39:23 -0400 Date: Mon, 3 May 2010 09:37:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Rik van Riel cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, Mel Gorman , Linux-MM , LKML , Minchan Kim , KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki , Andrea Arcangeli , Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: fix race between shift_arg_pages and rmap_walk In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20100503121743.653e5ecc@annuminas.surriel.com> <20100503121929.260ed5ee@annuminas.surriel.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LFD 1167 2008-08-23) 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 Mon, 3 May 2010, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > It looks like it makes execve() do a totally insane "create and then > immediately destroy temporary vma and anon_vma chain" for a case that is > unlikely to ever matter. > > In fact, for a case that isn't even normally _enabled_, namely migration. > > Why would we want to slow down execve() for that? Alternate suggestions: - clean up the patch so that it is explicitly abouy migration, and doesn't even get enabled for anything else. - make the migration code take the VM lock for writing (why doesn't it already?) and never race with things like this in the first place. - explain why the new code isn't any slower. Hmm? Linus