On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 10:44:06AM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > rcu_unlock:
> > +
> > + /* Drop an anon_vma reference if we took one */
> > + if (anon_vma && atomic_dec_and_lock(&anon_vma->migrate_refcount, &anon_vma->lock)) {
> > + int empty = list_empty(&anon_vma->head);
> > + spin_unlock(&anon_vma->lock);
> > + if (empty)
> > + anon_vma_free(anon_vma);
> > + }
> > +
>
> Why don't we check ksm_refcount here?
The counts later get merged and the ksm code should be doing its own
checking. Checking both counts here would obscure what is going on and
not help after patch 3 of the series.
> Also, why drop_anon_vma() doesn't need check migrate_refcount?
>
Same reason. Counts get merged later.
> plus, if we add this logic, we can remove SLAB_DESTROY_BY_RCU from
> anon_vma_cachep and rcu_read_lock() from unmap_and_move(), I think.
> It is for preventing anon_vma recycle logic. but no free directly mean
> no memory recycle.
>
This is true, but I don't think such a change belongs in this patch
series. If this series gets merged, then it would be sensible to investigate
if refcounting anon_vma is a good idea or would it be a bouncing write-shared
cacheline mess.
--
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick IBM Dublin Software Lab
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>