From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 3 May 2006 16:54:20 -0700 (PDT) From: Christoph Lameter Subject: Re: RFC: RCU protected page table walking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <4458CCDC.5060607@bull.net> <200605031846.51657.ak@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Return-Path: To: kenneth.w.chen@intel.com Cc: Hugh Dickins , Andi Kleen , Zoltan Menyhart , linux-mm@kvack.org, Zoltan.Menyhart@free.fr, linux-i64@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 3 May 2006, Hugh Dickins wrote: > Those architectures (including i386 and x86_64) which #define their > __pte_free_tlb etc. to tlb_remove_page are safe as is. But Zoltan's > ia64 #defines it to pte_free, which looks like it may free_page before > the TLB flush. But it is surprising if it has actually been unsafe Sorry but I am in .au right now with spotty high latency connectivity. But the people on linux-ia64 should know. Ken? Why was linux-ia64 not cced?? -- 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