Re: [patch] mm: tiny-shmem fix lor, mmap_sem vs i_mutex

[Dave Hansen]

On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 14:11 -0700, Matt Mackall wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 12:29 -0700, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > in 7 days that's about 7000 random bootups, 20% of which had TINY_SHMEM 
> > > enabled, half 32-bit, half 64-bit x86. It did not blow up in any way 
> > > that would have prevented the kernel from building its next random 
> > > version from within itself and it did not produce any kernel messages 
> > > with various random kernel debug, compile and boot options.
> > >   
> > 
> > Does anything in that workload actually use shared memory?
> 
> [adding Dave]
> 
> For the record, Hugh tracked down the history of this bug and it went
> something like this:
> 
> - I forked shmem.c and trimmed it down, keeping the function in question
> intact
> - Dave Hansen made divergent changes to shmem and tiny-shmem for reasons
> that aren't immediately obvious

Man, my memory sucks.  All I see that 'git blame' can pin on me are some
of the i_nlink helper additions.  Those weren't made in tiny-shmem.c
simply because it doesn't manipulate i_nlink like shmem.c does.  Was
there something else you had in mind?

-- Dave

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/