Re: missing madvise functionality
- From: Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 19:28:41 +0200
On Tue, Apr 03, 2007 at 10:20:02AM -0700, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
Andi Kleen wrote:
Why do you need a lock for that? I don't see any problem with
two threads doing that in parallel. The kernel would
serialize it internally and one would fail, but that shouldn't
be a problem.
There is no lock at all at userlevel. I'm talking about locks in the
kernel.
mmap_sem? Your new operation wouldn't solve that neither.
There were some proposals to fix mmap_sem (it's a big issue
for futexes too) but they're are quite involved.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: missing madvise functionality
- From: Andrew Morton
- Re: missing madvise functionality
- References:
- missing madvise functionality
- From: Ulrich Drepper
- Re: missing madvise functionality
- From: Andi Kleen
- Re: missing madvise functionality
- From: Ulrich Drepper
- missing madvise functionality
- Prev by Date: Re: getting processor numbers
- Next by Date: Re: [ckrm-tech] [PATCH 7/7] containers (V7): Container interface to nsproxy subsystem
- Previous by thread: Re: missing madvise functionality
- Next by thread: Re: missing madvise functionality
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|