[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150613185828.GA32376@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2015 20:58:28 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Denys Vlasenko <dvlasenk@...hat.com>,
Brian Gerst <brgerst@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Waiman Long <Waiman.Long@...com>
Subject: why do we need vmalloc_sync_all?
I didn't read v2 yet, but I'd like to ask a question.
Why do we need vmalloc_sync_all()?
It has a single caller, register_die_notifier() which calls it without
any explanation. IMO, this needs a comment at least.
I am not sure I understand the changelog in 101f12af correctly, but
at first glance vmalloc_sync_all() is no longer needed at least on x86,
do_page_fault() no longer does notify_die(DIE_PAGE_FAULT). And btw
DIE_PAGE_FAULT has no users. DIE_MNI too...
Perhaps we can simply kill it on x86?
As for other architectures I am not sure. arch/tile implements
vmalloc_sync_all() and uses notify_die() in do_page_fault().
And in any case register_die_notifier()->vmalloc_sync() looks strange.
If (say) arch/tile needs this to fix the problem with modules, perhaps
it should do vmalloc_sync_all() in do_init_module() paths?
Oleg.
--
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