[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3232338E-77BB-42A8-9A25-5A4AD61FD4B2@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2022 11:52:52 -0700
From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@...ux.dev>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wei Chen <harperchen1110@...il.com>,
"# 5 . 10+" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] hugetlb: don't delete vma_lock in hugetlb
MADV_DONTNEED processing
On Oct 30, 2022, at 11:43 AM, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> The loop comes from 7e027b14d53e ("vm: simplify unmap_vmas() calling
> convention", 2012-05-06), where zap_page_range() was used to replace a call
> to unmap_vmas() because the patch wanted to eliminate the zap details
> pointer for unmap_vmas(), which makes sense.
>
> I didn't check the old code, but from what I can tell (and also as Mike
> pointed out) I don't think zap_page_range() in the lastest code base is
> ever used on multi-vma at all. Otherwise the mmu notifier is already
> broken - see mmu_notifier_range_init() where the vma pointer is also part
> of the notification.
>
> Perhaps we should just remove the loop?
There is already zap_page_range_single() that does exactly that. Just need
to export it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists