On Wed, 7 May 2008, Christoph Lameter wrote:
>
> > (That said, we're not running out of vm flags yet, and if we were, we
> > could just add another word. We're already wasting that space right now on
> > 64-bit by calling it "unsigned long").
>
> We sure have enough flags.
Oh, btw, I was wrong - we wouldn't want to mark the vma's (they are
unique), we need to mark the address spaces/anonvma's. So the flag would
need to be in the "struct anon_vma" (and struct address_space), not in the
vma itself. My bad. So the flag wouldn't be one of the VM_xyzzy flags, and
would require adding a new field to "struct anon_vma()"
And related to that brain-fart of mine, that obviously also means that
yes, the locking has to be stronger than "mm->mmap_sem" held for writing,
so yeah, it would have be a separate global spinlock (or perhaps a
blocking lock if you have some reason to protect anything else with this
too).
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
