On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 17:33:34 -0500 Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 02:19:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 21:49:52 +0000 > > Al Viro <viro@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > So we need to pull the i_mutex out of hugetlbfs_file_mmap(). > > > > > > IIRC, you have a patch in your tree doing just that... > > > > Nope. > > > > But it seems that you've recently seen such a patch - can you recall > > where? > > this ? https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/23/64 > Thanks, yes, probably that. Needs the i_size_read()/write() changes. I worry a bit about the region handling code in mm/hugetlb.c. * The region data structures are protected by a combination of the mmap_sem * and the hugetlb_instantion_mutex. To access or modify a region the caller * must either hold the mmap_sem for write, or the mmap_sem for read and * the hugetlb_instantiation mutex: I hope that's true - it would be nice to have some debug assertions in the various region_foo() functions to verify that the required locks are held. But if that code is all nice and tight, I guess that removing that i_mutex acquisition will be pretty simple. -- 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>