[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140528160948.489fde6e0285885d13f7c656@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 16:09:48 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: dont call mmu_notifier_invalidate_page during
munlock
On Wed, 28 May 2014 11:59:55 +0400 Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@...il.com> wrote:
> try_to_munlock() searches other mlocked vmas, it never unmaps pages.
> There is no reason for invalidation because ptes are left unchanged.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/mm/rmap.c
> +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> @@ -1225,7 +1225,7 @@ int try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>
> out_unmap:
> pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
> - if (ret != SWAP_FAIL)
> + if (ret != SWAP_FAIL && TTU_ACTION(flags) != TTU_MUNLOCK)
> mmu_notifier_invalidate_page(mm, address);
> out:
> return ret;
The patch itself looks reasonable but there is no such thing as
try_to_munlock(). I rewrote the changelog thusly:
: In its munmap mode, try_to_unmap_one() searches other mlocked vmas, it
: never unmaps pages. There is no reason for invalidation because ptes are
: left unchanged.
Also, the name try_to_unmap_one() is now pretty inaccurate/incomplete.
Perhaps if someone is feeling enthusiastic they might think up a better
name for the various try_to_unmap functions and see if we can
appropriately document try_to_unmap_one().
--
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