[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BD9A84C.3050709@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 11:39:56 -0400
From: Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>
To: Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>
CC: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH -v3] take all anon_vma locks in anon_vma_lock
On 04/28/2010 10:55 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> When you tried anon_vma_chain patches as I pointed out, what I have a
> concern is parent's vma not child's one.
> The vma of parent still has N anon_vma.
No, it is the other way around.
The anon_vma of the parent is also present in all of the
children, so the parent anon_vma is attached to N vmas.
However, the parent vma only has 1 anon_vma attached to
it, and each of the children will have 2 anon_vmas.
That is what should keep any locking overhead with this
patch minimal.
Yes, a deep fork bomb can slow itself down. Too bad,
don't do that :)
--
All rights reversed
--
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