David Mosberger wrote:
On Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:12:45 +1000, Nick Piggin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> Now, Ingo says that the order is reversed with his patch, i.e.,
>> switch_mm() happens after switch_to(). That means flush_tlb_mm()
>> may now see a current->active_mm which hasn't really been
>> activated yet.
Nick> If that did bother you, could you keep track of the actually
Nick> activated mm in your arch code? Or would that involve more
Nick> arch hooks and general ugliness in the scheduler?
I'm sorry, but I don't see the point of this. We are already tracking
care of ownership, just not atomically. What's the point of putting
another level of (atomic) tracking on top of it. That seems
exceedingly ugly.
Well, you were worried about it not being atomic. So that would be
the point, but I agree it would probably be exceedingly ugly if
implemented.
Nick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
