[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170829120426.4ar56rbmiupbqmio@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:04:26 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
ak@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
jack@...e.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/20] mm: Provide speculative fault infrastructure
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 09:59:30AM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> On 27/08/2017 02:18, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >> +
> >> + if (unlikely(!vma->anon_vma))
> >> + goto unlock;
> >
> > It deserves a comment.
>
> You're right I'll add it in the next version.
> For the record, the root cause is that __anon_vma_prepare() requires the
> mmap_sem to be held because vm_next and vm_prev must be safe.
But should that test not be:
if (unlikely(vma_is_anonymous(vma) && !vma->anon_vma))
goto unlock;
Because !anon vmas will never have ->anon_vma set and you don't want to
exclude those.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists