On Mon 07-08-17 16:19:18, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 08/07/2017 03:46 PM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > How do they know that they need to regenerate if they do not get SEGV? > > Are they going to assume that a read of zeros is a "must init again"? Isn't > > that too fragile? > > Why would it be fragile? Some level of synchronization is needed to set > things up, of course, but I think it's possible to write a lock-free > algorithm to maintain the state even without strong guarantees of memory > ordering from fork.
Yeah, that is what I meant as fragile... I am not question this is impossible. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
