On 01/25/2018 02:01 PM, Andy Lutomirski wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 1:57 PM, Andi Kleen <[email protected]> wrote: >> Andy Lutomirski <[email protected]> writes: >>> >>> That being said, just stashing last_user_mm without any refcounting >>> should be fine. >> >> If last_user_mm is freed and reallocated by a different process, >> then that would miss the IPBP incorrectly. >> > > Hmm, right. So ctx_id it is. > > --Andy > Thanks. Using ctx_id is a pretty clean approach. I will refresh this patch and drop the second patch.
Tim
