On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:53 AM, KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 08:49:01 +0900 > KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 11:43:24 +0100 >> Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> 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 -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>