From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261244AbUKSCsq (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:48:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261232AbUKSCs1 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:48:27 -0500 Received: from smtp203.mail.sc5.yahoo.com ([216.136.129.93]:58712 "HELO smtp203.mail.sc5.yahoo.com") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S261244AbUKSCkR (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Nov 2004 21:40:17 -0500 Message-ID: <419D5D05.4020707@yahoo.com.au> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:40:05 +1100 From: Nick Piggin User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040820 Debian/1.7.2-4 X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Linus Torvalds CC: Ingo Molnar , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [patch, 2.6.10-rc2] fix __flush_tlb*() preemption bug on CONFIG_PREEMPT References: <20041118124656.GA4256@elte.hu> <20041118194619.GA23483@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Linus Torvalds wrote: > But yes, it may well make perfect sense to say "we have to hold the page > table spinlock in order to flush the tlb". Is that actually true right > now? > Can we try not to ratify a rule like that? :) We're somewhat closeish to being able to entirely remove the ptl, so it might just get awkward if people think they can rely on that rule. Of course, _if_ holding the ptl is the nicest way to do things in the mainline kernel then yeah OK I can't argue with that... but if at all possible... pretty please? Thanks, Nick