On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:21:06 -0400 Lee Schermerhorn <Lee.Schermerhorn@xxxxxx> wrote: > 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> > > @@ -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 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kernel-testers" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
