On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:21 AM, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Dec 2012, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>
>> compared to the diseased abortion you just posted.
>
> I'm picking up a vibe that you don't entirely like Mel's approach.
Good job. I was a bit nervous that I was being too subtle.
> I don't understand David's and Mel's remarks about the "shared pages"
> check making Sasha's warning unlikely: page_mapcount has nothing to do
> with whether a page belongs to shm/shmem/tmpfs, and it's easy enough
> to reproduce Sasha's warning on the current git tree. "mount -o
> remount,mpol=local /tmp" or something like that is useful in testing.
I think that Mel and David may talk about the mutex actually blocking
(not just the debug message possibly triggering).
> I wish wish wish I had time to spend on this today, but I don't.
> And I've not looked to see (let alone tested) whether it's easy
> to revert Mel's mutex then add in Kosaki's patch (which I didn't
> look at so have no opinion on).
I don't actually have Kosaki's patch either, just the description of
it. We've done that kind of "preallocate before taking the lock"
before, though.
> Shall we go for Peter/David's mutex+spinlock for rc1 - I assume
> they both tested that - with a promise to do better in rc2?
Well, if the plan is to fix it for rc2, then there is no point in
putting a workaround in now, since actually hitting the problem (as
opposed to seeing the warning) is presumably much harder.
Linus
--
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>