[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20260127055321.2400480-1-s9430939@naver.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 14:53:21 +0900
From: Minu Jin <s9430939@...er.com>
To: mingo@...hat.com,
peterz@...radead.org,
juri.lelli@...hat.com,
vincent.guittot@...aro.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
david@...nel.org,
kees@...nel.org
Cc: dietmar.eggemann@....com,
rostedt@...dmis.org,
bsegall@...gle.com,
mgorman@...e.de,
vschneid@...hat.com,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com,
Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
vbabka@...e.cz,
rppt@...nel.org,
surenb@...gle.com,
mhocko@...e.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
Minu Jin <s9430939@...er.com>
Subject: [PATCH] fork: clarify copy_mm() comment for kernel thread
The existing comment is misleading:
1. "steal a active VM" suggests this code performs the active_mm
borrowing, but the actual borrowing happens in context_switch()
where 'next->active_mm = prev->active_mm' is assigned.
This code simply returns 0 to skip mm copying for kernel threads.
2. "active VM" is outdated terminology, the kernel uses "active_mm".
Update the comment to accurately describe what this code does.
Signed-off-by: Minu Jin <s9430939@...er.com>
---
kernel/fork.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/fork.c b/kernel/fork.c
index b1f3915d5f8e..4bfd606004db 100644
--- a/kernel/fork.c
+++ b/kernel/fork.c
@@ -1566,9 +1566,10 @@ static int copy_mm(u64 clone_flags, struct task_struct *tsk)
tsk->active_mm = NULL;
/*
- * Are we cloning a kernel thread?
+ * Kernel threads have no 'mm' of their own as they borrow the
+ * 'active_mm' from the previous process at context_switch().
*
- * We need to steal a active VM for that..
+ * Return 0 directly to skip the copy_mm process.
*/
oldmm = current->mm;
if (!oldmm)
--
2.43.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists