> On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 1:21 AM, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com> wrote:
> > Hi Mel,
> >
> > did you see my proposed fix? I'm running with it applied, I'd be
> > interested if you can test it. Surely it will also work for new
> > anon-vma code in upstream, because at that point there's just 1
> > anon-vma and nothing else attached to the vma.
> >
> >
http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git;a=commit;h=6efa1dfa5152ef8d7f2...
> >
> > I think it's wrong to try to handle the race in rmap walk by making
> > magic checks on vm_flags VM_GROWSDOWN|GROWSUP and
> > vma->vm_mm->map_count == 1, when we can fix it fully and simply in
> > exec.c by indexing two vmas in the same anon-vma with a different
> > vm_start so the pages will be found at all times by the rmap_walk.
> >
>
> I like this approach than exclude temporal stack while migration.
>
> If we look it through viewpoint of performance, Mel and Kame's one
> look good and simple. But If I look it through viewpoint of
> correctness, Andrea's one looks good.
> I mean Mel's approach is that problem is here but let us solve it with
> there. it makes dependency between here and there. And In future, if
> temporal stack and rmap code might be problem, we also should solve it
> in there. :)
