[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20140619135820.57c4934dd613c5e723f9ca82@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:58:20 -0700
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com>
Cc: <oleg@...hat.com>, <rientjes@...gle.com>, <cl@...ux.com>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] fork: reset mm->pinned_vm
On Thu, 19 Jun 2014 13:07:47 +0400 Vladimir Davydov <vdavydov@...allels.com> wrote:
> mm->pinned_vm counts pages of mm's address space that were permanently
> pinned in memory by increasing their reference counter. The counter was
> introduced by commit bc3e53f682d9 ("mm: distinguish between mlocked and
> pinned pages"), while before it locked_vm had been used for such pages.
>
> Obviously, we should reset the counter on fork if !CLONE_VM, just like
> we do with locked_vm, but currently we don't. Let's fix it.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/kernel/fork.c
> +++ b/kernel/fork.c
> @@ -534,6 +534,7 @@ static struct mm_struct *mm_init(struct mm_struct *mm, struct task_struct *p)
> atomic_long_set(&mm->nr_ptes, 0);
> mm->map_count = 0;
> mm->locked_vm = 0;
> + mm->pinned_vm = 0;
> memset(&mm->rss_stat, 0, sizeof(mm->rss_stat));
> spin_lock_init(&mm->page_table_lock);
> mm_init_cpumask(mm);
What are the runtime effects of this? I think it is only
"/proc/pid/status:VmPin is screwed up", because we don't use vm_pinned
in rlimit checks. Yes?
--
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