[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <m1ljq8eawr.fsf@fess.ebiederm.org>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:22:28 -0700
From: ebiederm@...ssion.com (Eric W. Biederman)
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
Matt Helsley <matthltc@...ibm.com>, yamamoto@...inux.co.jp,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
xemul@...allels.com, serue@...ibm.com, dave@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
orenl@...columbia.edu, hch@...radead.org,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/30] Remove struct mm_struct::exe_file et al
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> writes:
> * Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> Commit 925d1c401fa6cfd0df5d2e37da8981494ccdec07 aka "procfs task
>> exe symlink". introduced struct mm_struct::exe_file and struct
>> mm_struct::num_exe_file_vmas.
>>
>> The rationale is weak: unifying MMU and no-MMU version of
>> /proc/*/exe code. For this a) struct mm_struct becomes bigger, b)
>> mmap/munmap/exit become slower, c) patch adds more code than
>> removes in fact.
>
> Hm, nommu unification was not the only effect of that original
> patch.
>
> The other effect was to introduce a managed 'which is the first
> executable vma in the mm' abstraction in struct mm. Your patch
> removes that abstraction and re-introduces a linear ->vma_next walk:
>
>> + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>> + for (vma = mm->mmap; vma; vma = vma->vm_next) {
>> + if ((vma->vm_flags & VM_EXECUTABLE) && vma->vm_file) {
>
> Which can walk along thousands (or tens of thousands) of vmas until
> it finds the first executable vma. For example on PIE binaries it's
> quite possible to have a lot of non-PROT_EXEC vmas before the first
> EXEC vma is met.
>
> So your revert reintroduces that linear walk. It might not matter
> much (/proc/*/exe might be sufficiently uninteresting in practice to
> not deserve an optimization), but it's still worth a mention and a
> discussion in the changelog.
There is also Andrew Morton's suggestion of just keeping a struct path
in mm_struct instead of struct file. That should be the best of both
worlds.
Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists