On Fri, 23 Mar 2001, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> There is no need to hold mm->page_table_lock for vmalloced memory.
But there is. You do need _some_ protection to protect the kernel from
inserting two different pmd/pgd entries for two different areas in the
same slot. And that's exactly what page_table_lock does for us.
> I guess a better solution is to make the vmalloc codepath use
> "pte_alloc_vmalloc" (or something like that) which would be a
> spinlock-free version of pte_alloc (like the old one).
The old one avoided the race by using the big kernel lock. Which is
totally non-sensical, but works. It's much better to use the spinlock that
is meant for exactly this thing.
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 23 2001 - 21:00:21 EST