From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]mmap: avoid unnecessary anon_vma lock
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:25:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110330032504.GD21838@one.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110329153517.3b87842f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:57:39 -0700
> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> writes:
> >
> > > If we only change vma->vm_end, we can avoid taking anon_vma lock even 'insert'
> > > isn't NULL, which is the case of split_vma.
> > > From my understanding, we need the lock before because rmap must get the
> > > 'insert' VMA when we adjust old VMA's vm_end (the 'insert' VMA is linked to
> > > anon_vma list in __insert_vm_struct before).
> > > But now this isn't true any more. The 'insert' VMA is already linked to
> > > anon_vma list in __split_vma(with anon_vma_clone()) instead of
> > > __insert_vm_struct. There is no race rmap can't get required VMAs.
> > > So the anon_vma lock is unnecessary, and this can reduce one locking in brk
> > > case and improve scalability.
> >
> > Looks good to me.
>
> Looks way too tricky to me.
>
> Please review this code for maintainability. Have we documented what
> we're doing as completely and as clearly as we are able?
I agree the comments could be improved, but the code change looked good
to me. I don't think it impacts maintainability by itself because
we already do similar magic.
-Andi
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org>,
Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com>, linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH]mmap: avoid unnecessary anon_vma lock
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2011 05:25:04 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20110330032504.GD21838@one.firstfloor.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110329153517.3b87842f.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 03:35:17PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 09:57:39 -0700
> Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> wrote:
>
> > Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> writes:
> >
> > > If we only change vma->vm_end, we can avoid taking anon_vma lock even 'insert'
> > > isn't NULL, which is the case of split_vma.
> > > From my understanding, we need the lock before because rmap must get the
> > > 'insert' VMA when we adjust old VMA's vm_end (the 'insert' VMA is linked to
> > > anon_vma list in __insert_vm_struct before).
> > > But now this isn't true any more. The 'insert' VMA is already linked to
> > > anon_vma list in __split_vma(with anon_vma_clone()) instead of
> > > __insert_vm_struct. There is no race rmap can't get required VMAs.
> > > So the anon_vma lock is unnecessary, and this can reduce one locking in brk
> > > case and improve scalability.
> >
> > Looks good to me.
>
> Looks way too tricky to me.
>
> Please review this code for maintainability. Have we documented what
> we're doing as completely and as clearly as we are able?
I agree the comments could be improved, but the code change looked good
to me. I don't think it impacts maintainability by itself because
we already do similar magic.
-Andi
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-03-30 3:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-03-28 1:58 [PATCH]mmap: avoid unnecessary anon_vma lock Shaohua Li
2011-03-28 1:58 ` Shaohua Li
2011-03-28 16:57 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-28 16:57 ` Andi Kleen
2011-03-29 22:35 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-29 22:35 ` Andrew Morton
2011-03-30 3:25 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2011-03-30 3:25 ` Andi Kleen
2011-04-18 3:05 ` Hugh Dickins
2011-04-18 3:05 ` Hugh Dickins
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20110330032504.GD21838@one.firstfloor.org \
--to=andi@firstfloor.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=shaohua.li@intel.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.