[PATCH] Fix race between pte_free and hash_page

Olof Johansson olof at austin.ibm.com
Sat Dec 13 04:20:12 EST 2003

Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:

>Unless I missed something, this should probably be applied to
>ameslab-2.5 now.

I like it!  Two comments and one question:

* Unless I'm missing something myself, (*batchp)->index is never
initialized. I guess we might get lucky most the time, but it could
cause badness.

* pte_freelist_forced_free is unprotected/nonatomic. It only seems to be
used as an indicator of memory pressure so it's not a big problem. I'm
guessing we don't really want to waste cycles on syncronization and can
live with it not being exact.

* Do we know how much extra IPI activity this causes on a fairly loaded
system? It would be interesting to know.



** Sent via the linuxppc64-dev mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/

More information about the Linuxppc64-dev mailing list