[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <56968b52-8629-2751-6a95-3bffa84a2326@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 18:06:25 +0100
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>,
"maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org" <maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken.cr@...il.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Rom Lemarchand <romlem@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 64/66] nommu: Remove uses of VMA linked list
On 1/20/22 16:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 04:06:21PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 12/1/21 15:30, Liam Howlett wrote:
>> > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>
>> >
>> > Use the maple tree or VMA iterator instead. This is faster and will
>> > allow us to shrink the VMA.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@...radead.org>
>> > Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
>>
>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
>>
>> But I think some fixup needed:
>>
>> > @@ -1456,12 +1458,14 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> >
>> > mm->total_vm = 0;
>> >
>> > - while ((vma = mm->mmap)) {
>> > - mm->mmap = vma->vm_next;
>> > + mmap_write_lock(mm);
>>
>> If locking was missing, should have been added sooner than now?
>
> I don't think so? This is the exit_mmap() path, so we know nobody
> has access to the mm. We didn't need to hold the lock at this point
> before, but now for_each_vma() will check we're holding the mmap_lock.
It has crossed my mind that it is there to make asserts happy, in which case
a clarifying comment would be useful.
>> > + for_each_vma(vmi, vma) {
>> > delete_vma_from_mm(vma);
>> > delete_vma(mm, vma);
>> > cond_resched();
>> > }
>> > + __mt_destroy(&mm->mm_mt);
>>
>> And this at the point mm_mt was added?
>
> You mean we should have been calling __mt_destroy() earlier in the
> patch series?
Yeah.
> Umm ... I'll defer to Liam on that one.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists