[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YmGwYKtz3sFkJlcv@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2022 20:28:32 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Nico Pache <npache@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Hari Bathini <hbathini@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC 1/3] mm: change vma_is_anonymous to vma_is_private_anon
On Thu, Apr 21, 2022 at 03:05:31PM -0400, Nico Pache wrote:
> The vma_is_anonymous function isn't fully indicative of what it checks.
>
> Without having full knowledge of the mmap process, one may incorrectly
> assume this covers all types of anonymous memory; which is not the case.
Is your complaint that anonymous memory can also be found in file VMAs
that were mapped with MAP_PRIVATE? ie COWed pages?
I don't think renaming this function is appropriate. It's whether
the VMA is anonymous, not whether the VMA can contain anonymous
pages.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists