On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 4:48 AM, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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 :-). So I've been fuzzing with it for the past couple of days and it's been looking fine with it. Can someone grab it into his tree please? Thanks, Sasha -- 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>