[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0909131636540.22865@sister.anvils>
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2009 16:46:12 +0100 (BST)
From: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/8] mm: FOLL_DUMP replace FOLL_ANON
On Thu, 10 Sep 2009, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > /*
> > * When core dumping an enormous anonymous area that nobody
> > - * has touched so far, we don't want to allocate page tables.
> > + * has touched so far, we don't want to allocate unnecessary pages or
> > + * page tables. Return error instead of NULL to skip handle_mm_fault,
> > + * then get_dump_page() will return NULL to leave a hole in the dump.
> > + * But we can only make this optimization where a hole would surely
> > + * be zero-filled if handle_mm_fault() actually did handle it.
> > */
> > - if (flags & FOLL_ANON) {
> > - page = ZERO_PAGE(0);
> > - if (flags & FOLL_GET)
> > - get_page(page);
> > - BUG_ON(flags & FOLL_WRITE);
> > - }
> > + if ((flags & FOLL_DUMP) &&
> > + (!vma->vm_ops || !vma->vm_ops->fault))
>
> How about adding comment about zero page use?
What kind of comment did you have in mind?
We used to use ZERO_PAGE there, but with this patch we're not using it.
I thought the comment above describes what we're doing well enough.
I may have kept too quiet about ZERO_PAGEs, knowing that a later patch
was going to change the story; but I don't see what needs saying here.
Hugh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists