On Wed, 7 May 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Wed, 7 May 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > and you're now done. You have your "mm_lock()" (which still needs to be
> > renamed - it should be a "mmu_notifier_lock()" or something like that),
> > but you don't need the insane sorting. At most you apparently need a way
> > to recognize duplicates (so that you don't deadlock on yourself), which
> > looks like a simple bit-per-vma.
>
> Andrea's mm_lock could have wider impact. It is the first effective
> way that I have seen of temporarily holding off reclaim from an address
> space. It sure is a brute force approach.
Well, I don't think the naming necessarily has to be about notifiers, but
it should be at least a *bit* more scary than "mm_lock()", to make it
clear that it's pretty dang expensive.
Even without the vmalloc and sorting, if it would be used by "normal"
things it would still be very expensive for some cases - running thngs
like ElectricFence, for example, will easily generate thousands and
thousands of vma's in a process.
Linus
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
