* Michel Lespinasse <wal...@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > AFAICT this isn't correct at all. We used to protect the vma
> > interval tree with the root lock, now we don't. All we've got
> > left is the mmap_sem, but anon_vma chains can cross
> > address-spaces and thus we're up some creek without no paddle.
>
> Yes, that was my first thought as well (though I wanted to double
> check at first).
>
> I also want to point out that lately we've seen several changes
> sent out that relax locking with no accompanying explanation of
> why the relaxed locking would be safe. Please don't do that -
> having a lot of performance data is worthless if you can't explain
> why the new locking is safe. And I'm not asking to prove a
> negative ('lack of any possible races') there, but at least in
> this case one could dig out why the root anon vma locking was
> introduced and if they think that this reason doesn't apply
> anymore, explain why...
By the looks of it it seems to be an unintentional bug, not an
intended feature.
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
