Re: [patch 1/6] mmu_notifier: Core code

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org>]

On Tue, Jan 29, 2008 at 02:59:14PM +0100, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> The down_write is garbage. The caller should put it around
> mmu_notifier_register if something. The same way the caller should
> call synchronize_rcu after mmu_notifier_register if it needs
> synchronous behavior from the notifiers. The default version of
> mmu_notifier_register shouldn't be cluttered with unnecessary locking.

Ooops my spinlock was gone from the notifier head.... so the above
comment is wrong sorry! I thought down_write was needed to serialize
against some _external_ event, not to serialize the list updates in
place of my explicit lock. The critical section is so small that a
semaphore is the wrong locking choice, that's why I assumed it was for
an external event. Anyway RCU won't be optimal for a huge flood of
register/unregister, I agree the down_write shouldn't create much
contention and it saves 4 bytes from each mm_struct, and we can always
change it to a proper spinlock later if needed.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft
Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008.
http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/