On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:21:06 -0400
Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@hp.com> wrote:

quoted text
> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 18:40 +0900, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki wrote:
> > Lee-san, how about this ?
> > Tested on x86-64 and tried Nisimura-san's test at el. works good now.
> 
> I have been testing with my work load on both ia64 and x86_64 and it
> seems to be working well.  I'll let them run for a day or so.
> 
thank you.
<snip>

quoted text
> > @@ -240,6 +232,9 @@ static int __munlock_pte_handler(pte_t *
> >  	struct page *page;
> >  	pte_t pte;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * page is never be unmapped by page-reclaim. we lock this page now.
> > +	 */
> 
> I don't understand what you're trying to say here.  That is, what the
> point of this comment is...
> 
We access the page-table without taking pte_lock. But this vm is MLOCKED
and migration-race is handled. So we don't need to be too nervous to access
the pte. I'll consider more meaningful words.

Thanks,
-Kame

--
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/