From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [PATCH 08 of 11] anon-vma-rwsem From: Peter Zijlstra In-Reply-To: References: <20080507153103.237ea5b6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080507224406.GI8276@duo.random> <20080507155914.d7790069.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20080507233953.GM8276@duo.random> <20080508025652.GW8276@duo.random> <20080508034133.GY8276@duo.random> <20080508052019.GA8276@duo.random> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 20:37:29 +0200 Message-Id: <1210358249.13978.275.camel@twins> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: Linus Torvalds Cc: Andrea Arcangeli , Christoph Lameter , Andrew Morton , steiner@sgi.com, holt@sgi.com, npiggin@suse.de, kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, kanojsarcar@yahoo.com, rdreier@cisco.com, swise@opengridcomputing.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, avi@qumranet.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, general@lists.openfabrics.org, hugh@veritas.com, rusty@rustcorp.com.au, aliguori@us.ibm.com, chrisw@redhat.com, marcelo@kvack.org, dada1@cosmosbay.com, paulmck@us.ibm.com List-ID: On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 09:11 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Thu, 8 May 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > > Also, we'd need to make it > > > > unsigned short flag:1; > > > > _and_ change spinlock_types.h to make the spinlock size actually match the > > required size (right now we make it an "unsigned int slock" even when we > > actually only use 16 bits). > > Btw, this is an issue only on 32-bit x86, because on 64-bit one we already > have the padding due to the alignment of the 64-bit pointers in the > list_head (so there's already empty space there). > > On 32-bit, the alignment of list-head is obviously just 32 bits, so right > now the structure is "perfectly packed" and doesn't have any empty space. > But that's just because the spinlock is unnecessarily big. > > (Of course, if anybody really uses NR_CPUS >= 256 on 32-bit x86, then the > structure really will grow. That's a very odd configuration, though, and > not one I feel we really need to care about). Another possibility, would something like this work? /* * null out the begin function, no new begin calls can be made */ rcu_assing_pointer(my_notifier.invalidate_start_begin, NULL); /* * lock/unlock all rmap locks in any order - this ensures that any * pending start() will have its end() function called. */ mm_barrier(mm); /* * now that no new start() call can be made and all start()/end() pairs * are complete we can remove the notifier. */ mmu_notifier_remove(mm, my_notifier); This requires a mmu_notifier instance per attached mm and that __mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() uses rcu_dereference() to obtain the function. But I think its enough to ensure that: for each start an end will be called It can however happen that end is called without start - but we could handle that I think. -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org