[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151008165539.GA2594@linux-uzut.site>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2015 09:55:39 -0700
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>
Cc: Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Davidlohr Bueso <dbueso@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] mm/vmacache: inline vmacache_valid_mm()
On Thu, 08 Oct 2015, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote:
>> >+/*
>> >+ * This task may be accessing a foreign mm via (for example)
>> >+ * get_user_pages()->find_vma(). The vmacache is task-local and this
>> >+ * task's vmacache pertains to a different mm (ie, its own). There is
>> >+ * nothing we can do here.
>> >+ *
>> >+ * Also handle the case where a kernel thread has adopted this mm via use_mm().
>> >+ * That kernel thread's vmacache is not applicable to this mm.
>> >+ */
>> >+static bool vmacache_valid_mm(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>
>> This needs (explicit) inlined, no?
>>
>
>oh, yeah. Funny how I said "both `static inline'" and made 'inline' only
>one of them.
Thinking a bit more about it, we don't want to be making vmacache_valid_mm()
visible, as users should only stick to vmacache_valid() calls. I doubt that
this would infact ever occur, but it's a bad idea regardless.
So I'd rather keep my patch as is. Yes, the compiler can already inline it for
us, but making it explicit is certainly won't harm.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
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