On 26.04.2018 18:29, Andrea Parri wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:52:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> On 26.04.2018 15:35, Andrea Parri wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>
>>> Mmh, it's possible that I am misunderstanding this statement but it does
>>> not seem quite correct to me; a counter-example wou
On 26.04.2018 18:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:52:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
1)for_each_process(g)copy_process()
p->mm = mm
smp_rmb(); smp_wmb() implied by alloc_pid()
i
On 26.04.2018 18:20, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:52:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> In the patch I used the logic, that the below code:
>>
>> x = A;
>> spin_lock();
>> spin_unlock();
>> spin_lock();
>> spin_unlock();
>> y = B;
>>
>> cannot reo
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:52:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> On 26.04.2018 15:35, Andrea Parri wrote:
[...]
> >
> > Mmh, it's possible that I am misunderstanding this statement but it does
> > not seem quite correct to me; a counter-example would be provided by the
> > test at "tools/memory-m
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:52:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> >>
> >> 1)for_each_process(g)copy_process()
> >>p->mm = mm
> >> smp_rmb(); smp_wmb() implied by alloc_pid()
> >> if (g->flags & PF_KTHREAD) list_add_tail_r
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 04:52:39PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> In the patch I used the logic, that the below code:
>
> x = A;
> spin_lock();
> spin_unlock();
> spin_lock();
> spin_unlock();
> y = B;
>
> cannot reorder much than:
>
> spin_lock();
>
On 26.04.2018 15:35, Andrea Parri wrote:
> Hi Kirill,
>
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 02:01:07PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
>> The patch finalizes the series and makes mm_update_next_owner()
>> to iterate over task list using RCU instead of tasklist_lock.
>> This is possible because of rules of inheri
Hi Kirill,
On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 02:01:07PM +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> The patch finalizes the series and makes mm_update_next_owner()
> to iterate over task list using RCU instead of tasklist_lock.
> This is possible because of rules of inheritance of mm: it may be
> propagated to a child onl
The patch finalizes the series and makes mm_update_next_owner()
to iterate over task list using RCU instead of tasklist_lock.
This is possible because of rules of inheritance of mm: it may be
propagated to a child only, while only kernel thread can obtain
someone else's mm via use_mm().
Also, all
9 matches
Mail list logo