[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200922184359.GI11679@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:44:00 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leonro@...dia.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm: Do early cow for pinned pages during fork() for
ptes
On 09/22, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> Or I can also do it in inverted order if you think better:
>
> if (unlikely(copy_ret == COPY_MM_BREAK_COW)) {
> WARN_ON_ONCE(!data.cow_new_page);
> ...
> }
Peter, let me say this again. I don't understand this code enough, you
can safely ignore me ;)
However. Personally I strongly prefer the above. Personally I really
dislike this part of 4/5:
again:
+ /* We don't reset this for COPY_MM_BREAK_COW */
+ memset(&data, 0, sizeof(data));
+
+again_break_cow:
If we rely on "copy_ret == COPY_MM_BREAK_COW" we can unify "again" and
"again_break_cow", we don't need to clear ->cow_new_page, this makes the
logic more understandable. To me at least ;)
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists