Re: Dirty/Access bits vs. page content

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 2014-04-22 at 21:23 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> But I'm starting to consider this whole thing to be a 3.16 issue by
> now. It wasn't as simple as it looked, and while our old location of
> set_page_dirty() is clearly wrong, and DaveH even got a test-case for
> it (which I initially doubted would even be possible), I still
> seriously doubt that anybody sane who cares about data consistency
> will do concurrent unmaps (or MADV_DONTNEED) while another writer is
> actively using that mapping.

I'm more worried about users of unmap_mapping_ranges() than concurrent
munmap(). Things like the DRM playing tricks like swapping a mapping
from memory to frame buffer and vice-versa.

In any case, I agree with delaying that for 3.16, it's still very
unlikely that we hit this in any case that actually matters.

Cheers,
Ben.


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel]     [Kernel Newbies]     [x86 Platform Driver]     [Netdev]     [Linux Wireless]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux Filesystems]     [Yosemite Discussion]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux