* Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2011-09-20 09:34:01]: > On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 05:29:38PM +0530, Srikar Dronamraju wrote: > > - Uses i_mutex instead of uprobes_mutex. > > What for exactly? I'm pretty strict against introducing even more > uses for i_mutex, it's already way to overloaded with different > meanings. > There could be multiple simultaneous requests for adding/removing a probe for the same location i.e same inode + same offset. These requests will have to be serialized. To serialize this we had used uprobes specific mutex (uprobes_mutex) in the last patchset. However using uprobes_mutex will mean we will be serializing requests for unrelated files. I.e if we get a request to probe libpthread while we are inserting/deleting a probe on libc, then we used to make the libpthread request wait unnecessarily. This also means that I dont need to introduce yet another lock. After using i_mutex, these two requests can run in parallel. I had proposed this while answering one of the comments in the last patchset. Since I didnt hear any complaints, I went ahead and implemented this. I could use any other inode/file/mapping based sleepable lock that is of higher order than mmap_sem. Can you please let me know if we have alternatives. -- Thanks and Regards Srikar -- 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/ . Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/ Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>