[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150608081751.GC1380@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2015 10:17:51 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
To: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com,
riel@...hat.com, sasha.levin@...cle.com, dave@...olabs.net,
koct9i@...il.com, pfeiner@...gle.com, dh.herrmann@...il.com,
vishnu.ps@...sung.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/mmap.c: optimization of do_mmap_pgoff function
On Sat 06-06-15 11:54:32, Piotr Kwapulinski wrote:
> The simple check for zero length memory mapping may be performed
> earlier. It causes that in case of zero length memory mapping some
> unnecessary code is not executed at all. It does not make the code less
> readable and saves some CPU cycles.
>
> Signed-off-by: Piotr Kwapulinski <kwapulinski.piotr@...il.com>
Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
> ---
> mm/mmap.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> index bb50cac..aa632ad 100644
> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> @@ -1258,6 +1258,9 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
>
> *populate = 0;
>
> + if (!len)
> + return -EINVAL;
> +
> /*
> * Does the application expect PROT_READ to imply PROT_EXEC?
> *
> @@ -1268,9 +1271,6 @@ unsigned long do_mmap_pgoff(struct file *file, unsigned long addr,
> if (!(file && (file->f_path.mnt->mnt_flags & MNT_NOEXEC)))
> prot |= PROT_EXEC;
>
> - if (!len)
> - return -EINVAL;
> -
> if (!(flags & MAP_FIXED))
> addr = round_hint_to_min(addr);
>
> --
> 2.3.7
>
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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