[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <AANLkTikchW7Z6mSgcbt7wn9DWTeEGrKwfMwj1_WjMB5c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 06:16:08 +1000
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>,
Mel Gorman <mel@....ul.ie>, Nick Piggin <npiggin@...nel.dk>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Yanmin Zhang <yanmin_zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 20/25] mm: Simplify anon_vma refcounts
On Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl> wrote:
>
> This patch changes the anon_vma refcount to be 0 when the object is
> free. It does this by adding 1 ref to being in use in the anon_vma
> structure (iow. the anon_vma->head list is not empty).
Why is this patch part of this series, rather than being an
independent patch before the whole series?
I think this part of the series is the only total no-brainer, ie we
should have done this from the beginning. The preemptability stuff I'm
more nervous about (performance issues? semantic differences?)
Linus
--
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