Re: [PATCH] allow vma merging with mlock et. al.

[Darren Hart]

Chris Wright wrote:
> * Chris Wright (chrisw@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
>
> > * Darren Hart (dvhltc@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> >
> > > The were a couple long standing (since at least 2.4.21) superfluous 
> > > variables and two unnecessary assignments in do_mlock().  The intent of 
> > > the resulting code is also more obvious.
> > >
> > > Tested on a 4 way x86 box running a simple mlock test program.  No 
> > > problems detected.
> >
> > Did you test with multiple page ranges, and locking subsets of vmas?
> > Seems that splitting could cause a problem since you now sample vm_end
> > before and after fixup, where the vma could be changed in the middle.
>
>
> Actually I think it winds up being fine since we don't do merging with
> mlock.  But why not?  Patch below remedies that.

We don't merge, but we do split if necessary, so the temp variables are 
still needed.  As I understand it, the reason we don't merge is because 
it is expected that a task will lock and unlock the same memory range 
more than once and we don't want to waste our time merging and splitting 
the VMAs.

Thanks,

--Darren
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/