On Fri, 7 May 2010 08:52:19 +0900 KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 6 May 2010 10:46:21 +0100 > Mel Gorman <mel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 5. It added a field to mm_struct. It's the smallest of concerns though. > > > > Do you think it's a better approach and should be revisited? > > > > > > If everyone think seqlock is simple, I think it should be. But it seems you all are > going ahead with anon_vma->lock approach. > (Basically, it's ok to me if it works. We may be able to make it better in later.) > > I'll check your V7. > > Thank you for answering. plz forget about seq_counter. we may have to add "retry" path for avoiding dead lock. If so, using anon_vma->lock in proper manner seems sane. Thanks, -Kame -- 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>