Re: [RFC PATCH] asynchronous page fault.

[Balbir Singh <balbir@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

* Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2009-12-28 09:32:53]:

> On Mon, 2009-12-28 at 06:27 +0530, Balbir Singh wrote:
> > * Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> [2009-12-27 12:19:56]:
> > 
> > > Your changelog states as much.
> > > 
> > > "Even if RB-tree rotation occurs while we walk tree for look-up, we just
> > > miss vma without oops."
> > > 
> > > However, since this is the case, do we still need the
> > > rcu_assign_pointer() conversion your patch does? All I can see it do is
> > > slow down all RB-tree users, without any gain.
> > 
> > Don't we need the rcu_assign_pointer() on the read side primarily to
> > make sure the pointer is still valid and assignments (writes) are not
> > re-ordered? Are you suggesting that the pointer assignment paths be
> > completely atomic?
> 
> rcu_assign_pointer() is the write side, but if you need a barrier, you
> can make do with a single smp_wmb() after doing the rb-tree op. There is
> no need to add multiple in the tree-ops themselves.
>

Yes, that makes sense.
 
> You cannot make the assignment paths atomic (without locks) that's the
> whole problem.
>

True, but pre-emption can be nasty in some cases. But I am no expert
in the atomicity of operations like assignments across architectures.
I assume all word, long assignments are.

-- 
	Balbir

--
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: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>