Re: anon_vma RFC2

[Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de>]

On Sat, Mar 13, 2004 at 12:55:09PM -0500, Rajesh Venkatasubramanian wrote:
> 
> > The only problem is mremap() after a fork(), and hell, we know that's a
> > special case anyway, and let's just add a few lines to copy_one_pte(),
> > which basically does:
> >
> >	if (PageAnonymous(page) && page->count > 1) {
> >		newpage = alloc_page();
> >		copy_page(page, newpage);
> >		page = newpage;
> >	}
> >	/* Move the page to the new address */
> >	page->index = address >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >
> > and now we have zero special cases.
> 
> This part makes the problem so simple. If this is acceptable, then we
> have many choices. Since we won't have many mms in the anonmm list,
> I don't think we will have any search complexity problems. If we really
> worry again about search complexity, we can consider using prio_tree
> (adds 16 bytes per vma - we cannot share vma.shared.prio_tree_node).
> The prio_tree easily fits for anonmm after linus-mremap-simplification.

prio_tree with linus-mremap-simplification makes no sense to me. You
cannot avoid checking all the mm with the prio_tree and that is the only
complexity issue introduced by anonmm vs anon_vma.


prio_tree can only sit on top of anon_vma, not on top of
anonmm+linus-unshare-mremap (and yes, I cannot share
vma.shared.prio_tree_node) but pratically it's not needed for the
anon_vmas.