On Sat, Feb 24, 2007 at 10:10:57PM +0000, Hugh Dickins wrote: > On Fri, 23 Feb 2007, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > This look like a valid fix to me, at least as long as the lock is never > > dropped in the meantime (e.g., to do I/O). If the lock -is- dropped in > > the meantime, then presumably whatever is done to keep the page from > > vanishing should allow an rcu_read_unlock() to be placed after each > > spin_unlock(&...->lock) and an rcu_read_lock() to be placed before each > > spin_lock(&...->lock). > > Thankfully no complications of that kind, page_lock_anon_vma is static > to mm/rmap.c, and only used to hold the spin lock while examining page > tables of the vmas in the list, never a need to drop that lock at all. > (Until the day when someone reports such a long list that we start to > worry about the latency.)
Whew!!! For now, anyway! ;-) Thanx, Paul - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/