On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 03:05:22PM +0800, Boqun Feng wrote:
> > I like Boqun's approach most but, _whatever_. It's ok if it solves the problem.
> > The last one is not bad when it is used for syscall exit, but we have to give
> > up valid dependencies unnecessarily in other cases. And I think Peterz's
> > approach should be modified a bit to make it work neatly, like:
> >
> > crossrelease_hist_end(...)
> > {
> > ...
> > invalidate_xhlock(&xhlock(cur->xhlock_idx_max));
> >
> > for (c = 0; c < XHLOCK_CXT_NR; c++)
> > if ((cur->xhlock_idx_max - cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c]) >=
> > MAX_XHLOCKS_NR)
> > invalidate_xhlock(&xhlock(cur->xhlock_idx_hist[c]));
> > ...
> > }
> >
>
> Haven't looked into this deeply, but my gut feeling is this is
> unnecessary, will have a deep look.
Of course, for now, it looks like we can rely on the check_same_context()
on the commit, without invalidating it. But I think the approach might be
dangerous in future. I think it would be better to do it explicitlly.
>
> Regards,
> Boqun
>
> > And then Peterz's approach can also work, I think.
> >
> > ---
> > Thanks,
> > Byungchul
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>
