[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+55aFzN7MMoxzaq-mcNcNoVzUMr0aPHDTipU-OVdaz7_YZ12Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2015 10:48:56 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <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>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
Waiman Long <waiman.long@...com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/11] x86/mm/hotplug: Remove pgd_list use from the memory
hotplug code
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org> wrote:
> +
> + for_each_process(g) {
> + struct task_struct *p;
> + struct mm_struct *mm;
> pgd_t *pgd;
> spinlock_t *pgt_lock;
>
> + p = find_lock_task_mm(g);
> + if (!p)
> + continue;
> +
> + mm = p->mm;
So quite frankly, this is *much* better than the earlier version that
walked over all threads.
However, this now becomes a pattern for the series, and that just makes me think
"Why is this not a 'for_each_mm()' pattern helper?"
if it only showed up once, that would be one thing. But this
patch-series makes it a thing. Which is why I wonder..
Linus
--
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