On Thu, 2012-10-25 at 16:09 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, Oct 25, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > So I think the below should work, we hold the spinlock over both rb-tree > > modification as sp free, this makes mpol_shared_policy_lookup() which > > returns the policy with an incremented refcount work with just the > > spinlock. > > > > Comments? > > Looks reasonable, if annoyingly complex for something that shouldn't > be important enough for this. Oh well. I agree with that.. Its just that when doing numa placement one needs to respect the pre-existing placement constraints. I've not seen a way around this. > However, please check me on this: the need for this is only for > linux-next right now, correct? All the current users in my tree are ok > with just the mutex, no? Yes, the need comes from the numa stuff and I'll stick this patch in there. I completely missed Mel's patch turning it into a mutex, but I guess that's what -next is for :-). -- 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