Re: Race between vmtruncate and mapped areas?
From: Dave McCracken <hidden>
Date: 2003-05-14 17:53:23
Also in:
lkml
--On Wednesday, May 14, 2003 10:57:06 -0700 Andrew Morton [off-list ref] wrote:
yes. It's a very complex way of allocating anonymous memory.
Yep. And randomly, at that.
I am told that Stephen, Linus and others discussed this at length at KS a couple of years ago and the upshot was that the application is racy anyway and there's nothing wrong with it. Hugh calls these "Morton pages" but it wasn't me and nobody saw me do it. It would be nice to make them go away - they cause problems.
Definitely. We almost have the pieces necessary to detect it and/or prevent it, but the info isn't in quite the right layer at the right time. If it weren't for the lock order problem with mmap_sem we could have nailed it that way. Sigh. Dave ====================================================================== Dave McCracken IBM Linux Base Kernel Team 1-512-838-3059 dmccr@us.ibm.com T/L 678-3059 -- 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:"aart@kvack.org"> aart@kvack.org </a>