On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 08:45:35AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 11-02-19 09:56:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:48:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Mon 11-02-19 13:59:24, Linux Upstream wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Chintan Pandya
> > > > >
> > > > >
On Mon 11-02-19 09:56:53, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:48:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 11-02-19 13:59:24, Linux Upstream wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Chintan Pandya
> > > >
> > > > NAK.
> > > >
> > > > This is bound to regress some stuff. Now agreed
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 06:48:46PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 11-02-19 13:59:24, Linux Upstream wrote:
> > >
> > >> Signed-off-by: Chintan Pandya
> > >
> > > NAK.
> > >
> > > This is bound to regress some stuff. Now agreed that using non-atomic
> > > ops is tricky, but many are in places
On Mon 11-02-19 13:59:24, Linux Upstream wrote:
> >
> >> Signed-off-by: Chintan Pandya
> >
> > NAK.
> >
> > This is bound to regress some stuff. Now agreed that using non-atomic
> > ops is tricky, but many are in places where we 'know' there can't be
> > concurrency.
> >
> > If you can show
On 11/02/19 7:16 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:53:53PM +, Chintan Pandya wrote:
>> Currently, page lock operation is non-atomic. This is opening
>> some scope for race condition. For ex, if 2 threads are accessing
>> same page flags, it may happen that our desired
On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:53:53PM +, Chintan Pandya wrote:
> Currently, page lock operation is non-atomic. This is opening
> some scope for race condition. For ex, if 2 threads are accessing
> same page flags, it may happen that our desired thread's page
> lock bit (PG_locked) might get
6 matches
Mail list logo
