One anomaly remains from when Andrea rationalized the responsibilities of
mmap_sem and page_table_lock: in dup_mmap we add vmas to the child holding its
page_table_lock, but not the mmap_sem which normally guards the vma list and
rbtree.  Which could be an issue for unuse_mm: though since it just walks down
the list (today with page_table_lock, tomorrow not), it's probably okay.  Will
need a memory barrier?  Oh, keep it simple, Nick and I agreed, no harm in
taking child's mmap_sem here.
Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hugh@veritas.com>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>
 
        down_write(&oldmm->mmap_sem);
        flush_cache_mm(oldmm);
+       down_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
+
        mm->locked_vm = 0;
        mm->mmap = NULL;
        mm->mmap_cache = NULL;
                }
 
                /*
-                * Link in the new vma and copy the page table entries:
-                * link in first so that swapoff can see swap entries.
-                * Note that, exceptionally, here the vma is inserted
-                * without holding mm->mmap_sem.
+                * Link in the new vma and copy the page table entries.
                 */
                spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
                *pprev = tmp;
                        goto out;
        }
        retval = 0;
-
 out:
+       up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
        flush_tlb_mm(oldmm);
        up_write(&oldmm->mmap_sem);
        return retval;