On Fri, 2006-12-15 at 18:22 +0100, Michael Buesch wrote: > On Friday 15 December 2006 17:53, Dave Hansen wrote: > > lxc-dave/init/main.c | 4 ++++ > > lxc-dave/mm/page_alloc.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--- > > 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > > > diff -puN init/main.c~sparsemem-fix init/main.c > > --- lxc/init/main.c~sparsemem-fix 2006-12-15 08:49:53.000000000 -0800 > > +++ lxc-dave/init/main.c 2006-12-15 08:49:53.000000000 -0800 > > @@ -770,6 +770,10 @@ static int init(void * unused) > > free_initmem(); > > unlock_kernel(); > > mark_rodata_ro(); > > + /* > > + * Memory hotplug requires that this system_state transition > > + * happer after free_initmem(). (see memmap_init_zone()) > > s/happer/happens/ > > Other than that, can't this possibly race and crash here? > I mean, it's not a big race window, but it can happen, no?
That's a good point. Nice eye. There are three routes in here: boot-time init, an ACPI call, and a write to a sysfs file. Bootmem is taken care of. The write to a sysfs file can't happen yet because userspace isn't up. The only question would be about ACPI. I _guess_ an ACPI event could come in at any time, and could hit this race window. One other thought I had was to add an argument to memmap_init_zone() to indicate that the memory being fed to it was contiguous and did not need the validation checks. Anybody have thoughts on that? -- Dave - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
