[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1301277532.3981.25.camel@sli10-conroe>
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:58:52 +0800
From: Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@...el.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>, lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: [PATCH]mmap: avoid unnecessary anon_vma lock
If we only change vma->vm_end, we can avoid taking anon_vma lock even 'insert'
isn't NULL, which is the case of split_vma.
>From my understanding, we need the lock before because rmap must get the
'insert' VMA when we adjust old VMA's vm_end (the 'insert' VMA is linked to
anon_vma list in __insert_vm_struct before).
But now this isn't true any more. The 'insert' VMA is already linked to
anon_vma list in __split_vma(with anon_vma_clone()) instead of
__insert_vm_struct. There is no race rmap can't get required VMAs.
So the anon_vma lock is unnecessary, and this can reduce one locking in brk
case and improve scalability.
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li<shaohua.li@...el.com>
---
mm/mmap.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux/mm/mmap.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/mm/mmap.c 2011-03-24 09:08:27.000000000 +0800
+++ linux/mm/mmap.c 2011-03-24 09:14:03.000000000 +0800
@@ -605,7 +605,7 @@ again: remove_next = 1 + (end > next->
* lock may be shared between many sibling processes. Skipping
* the lock for brk adjustments makes a difference sometimes.
*/
- if (vma->anon_vma && (insert || importer || start != vma->vm_start)) {
+ if (vma->anon_vma && (importer || start != vma->vm_start)) {
anon_vma = vma->anon_vma;
anon_vma_lock(anon_vma);
}
--
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