On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki
<kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:49:01 +0900
> KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:43:24 +0100
>> Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie> wrote:
>
>> > It looks nice but it still broke after 28 hours of running. The
>> > seq-counter is still insufficient to catch all changes that are made to
>> > the list. I'm beginning to wonder if a) this really can be fully safely
>> > locked with the anon_vma changes and b) if it has to be a spinlock to
>> > catch the majority of cases but still a lazy cleanup if there happens to
>> > be a race. It's unsatisfactory and I'm expecting I'll either have some
>> > insight to the new anon_vma changes that allow it to be locked or Rik
>> > knows how to restore the original behaviour which as Andrea pointed out
>> > was safe.
>> >
>> Ouch. Hmm, how about the race in fork() I pointed out ?
>>
> Forget this. Sorry for noise.

Yes. It was due to my wrong explanation.
Sorry for that, Kame.


-- 
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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/