[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091118151803.35f55ca3.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:18:03 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [for mmotm-1113] mm: Simplify try_to_unmap_one()
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:39:27 +0900 (JST)
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com> wrote:
> +out_mlock:
> + pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
> +
> + if (down_read_trylock(&vma->vm_mm->mmap_sem)) {
> + if (vma->vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) {
> + mlock_vma_page(page);
> + ret = SWAP_MLOCK;
> }
> + up_read(&vma->vm_mm->mmap_sem);
It's somewhat unobvious why we're using a trylock here. Ranking versus
lock_page(), perhaps?
In general I think a trylock should have an associated comment which explains
a) why it is being used at this site and
b) what happens when the trylock fails - why this isn't a
bug, how the kernel recovers from the inconsistency, what its
overall effect is, etc.
<wonders why we need to take mmap_sem here at all>
--
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