On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Linus Torvalds
<torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> That said, I do agree with the "anon_vma_root" part of your patch. I
> just think you mixed up two independent issues with it: the fact that
> we may be unlocking a new root, and the precise check used to
> determine whether the anon_vma might have changed.
Thinking some more about it, I end up agreeing with the whole patch.
The "page_mapped()" test is what we use in the slow-path after
incrementing the anon_vma count too when the trylock didn't work too,
so it can't be too wrong.
So I'm going to apply it as-is as an improvement (at least we won't be
unlocking the wrong anon_vma root), and hope that you and Peter end up
agreeing about what the sufficient test is for whether the anon_vma is
the right one.
Linus
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>