[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CADyq12wWOhGDeUeOB74dxuRKjPhduMWZLBMxOxpm5-yHOpjaRw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2020 10:20:44 -0800
From: Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Michael S . Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Jesse Barnes <jsbarnes@...gle.com>,
Nathan Chancellor <natechancellor@...il.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] mm: Add MREMAP_DONTUNMAP to mremap().
Hi Kirill,
> But if you do the operation for the VM_LOCKED vma, you'll have two locked
> VMA's now, right? Where do you account the old locked vma you left behind?
You bring up a good point. In a previous iteration of my patch I had
it clearing the locked flags on the old VMA as technically the locked
pages had migrated. I talked myself out of that but the more I think
about it we should probably do that. Something along the lines of:
+ if (vm_flags & VM_LOCKED) {
+ /* Locked pages would have migrated to the new VMA */
+ vma->vm_flags &= VM_LOCKED_CLEAR_MASK;
+ if (new_len > old_len)
+ mm->locked_vm += (new_len - old_len) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+ }
I feel that this is correct. The only other possible option would be
to clear only the VM_LOCKED flag on the old vma leaving VM_LOCKONFAULT
to handle the MCL_ONFAULT mlocked situation, thoughts? Regardless I'll
have to mail a new patch because that part where I'm incrementing the
mm->locked_vm lost the check on VM_LOCKED during patch versions.
Thanks again for taking the time to review.
Brian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists