Hi,
On Sun, Mar 18, 2001 at 10:34:38AM +0100, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> > The problem is that mmap_sem seems to be protecting the list
> > of VMAs, so taking _only_ the page_table_lock could let a VMA
> > change under us while a page fault is underway ...
>
> No, that can't happen.
It can. Page
>
> The problem is that mmap_sem seems to be protecting the list
> of VMAs, so taking _only_ the page_table_lock could let a VMA
> change under us while a page fault is underway ...
No, that can't happen.
VMA changes only happen if both the mmap_sem and the page table lock is
acquired. (check ins
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 16, 2001 at 08:50:25AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Mar 2001, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>
> > > Write locks would be used in the code where we actually want
> > > to change the VMA list and page faults would use an extra lock
> > > to protect against each other (possib
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 15, 2001 at 09:24:59AM -0300, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> The mmap_sem is used in procfs to prevent the list of VMAs
> from changing. In the page fault code it seems to be used
> to prevent other page faults to happen at the same time with
> t
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Mar 2001, george anzinger wrote:
>
> > Is it REALLY necessary to prevent them from seeing an
> > inconsistent state? Seems to me that in the total picture (i.e.
> > system wide) they will never see a consistent state, so why be
> > concerned
5 matches
Mail list logo
