IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
sparc64 is unique among architectures in taking the page_table_lock in
its context switch (well, cris does too, but erroneously, and it's not
yet SMP anyway).
This seems to be a private affair between switch_mm and activate_mm,
using page_table_lock as a per-mm lock, without any relation to its uses
elsewhere. That's fine, but comment it as such; and unlock sooner in
switch_mm, more like in activate_mm (preemption is disabled here).
There is a block of "if (0)"ed code in smp_flush_tlb_pending which would
have liked to rely on the page_table_lock, in switch_mm and elsewhere;
but its comment explains how dup_mmap's flush_tlb_mm defeated it. And
though that could have been changed at any time over the past few years,
now the chance vanishes as we push the page_table_lock downwards, and
perhaps split it per page table page. Just delete that block of code.
Which leaves the mysterious spin_unlock_wait(&oldmm->page_table_lock)
in kernel/fork.c copy_mm. Textual analysis (supported by Nick Piggin)
suggests that the comment was written by DaveM, and that it relates to
the defeated approach in the sparc64 smp_flush_tlb_pending. Just delete
this block too.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
dedeb0029b