On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 02:35:59PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
quoted text
> Could you be specific? This refers to page migration? Hmmm... Guess we 

If the reader schedule, the synchronize_rcu will return in the other
cpu and the objects in the list will be freed and overwritten, and
when the task is scheduled back in, it'll follow dangling pointers...
You can't use RCU if you want any of your invalidate methods to
schedule. Otherwise it's like having zero locking.

quoted text
> 2. Not handle file backed mappings (XPmem could work mostly in such a 
> config)

IMHO that fits under your definition of "hacking something in now and
then having to modify it later".

quoted text
> 3. Keep the refcount elevated until pages are freed in another execution 
> context.

Page refcount is not enough (the mmu_notifier_release will run in
another cpu the moment after i_mmap_lock is unlocked) but mm_users may
prevent us to change the i_mmap_lock to a mutex, but it'll slowdown
truncate as it'll have to drop the lock and restart the radix tree
walk every time so a change like this better fits as a separate
CONFIG_XPMEM IMHO.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/