Re: [PATCH 2/5] change direct call of spin_lock(anon_vma->lock) toinline function

[Peter Zijlstra]

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 15:04 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 15:39:26 -0400
> Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > @@ -303,10 +303,10 @@ again:
> >  		goto out;
> >  
> >  	anon_vma = (struct anon_vma *) (anon_mapping - PAGE_MAPPING_ANON);
> > -	spin_lock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > +	anon_vma_lock(anon_vma);
> >  
> >  	if (page_rmapping(page) != anon_vma) {
> > -		spin_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > +		anon_vma_unlock(anon_vma);
> >  		goto again;
> >  	}
> >  
> 
> This bit is dependent upon Peter's
> mm-revalidate-anon_vma-in-page_lock_anon_vma.patch (below).  I've been
> twiddling thumbs for weeks awaiting the updated version of that patch
> (hint).

Yeah, drop it, the updated patch is only a comment trying to explain why
the current code is ok.

> Do we think that this patch series is needed in 2.6.35?  If so, why? 
> And if so I guess we'll need to route around
> mm-revalidate-anon_vma-in-page_lock_anon_vma.patch, or just merge it
> as-is.
> 

I don't actually think that patch of mine is needed, the reject Rik's
patch generates without it is rather trivial to fix up, if you want I
can send you a fixed up version.


--
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/