On 05/19, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> Long term I
> would like to to move this logic into the mm_struct, it would be just
> larger surgery I guess.
Why we can't do this right now? Just another MMF_ flag set only once and
never cleared.
And. I personally like this change "in general", if nothing else I recently
blamed this for_each_process_thread() loop. But if we do this, I think we
should also shift find_lock_task_mm() into this loop.
And this makes me think again we need something like
struct task_struct *next_task_with_mm(struct task_struct *p)
{
struct task_struct *t;
p = p->group_leader;
while ((p = next_task(p)) != &init_task) {
if (p->flags & PF_KTHREAD)
continue;
t = find_lock_task_mm(p);
if (t)
return t;
}
return NULL;
}
#define for_each_task_lock_mm(p)
for (p = &init_task; (p = next_task_with_mm(p)); task_unlock(p))
Or we we can move task_unlock() into next_task_with_mm(), it can check mm != NULL
or p != init_task.
Oleg.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>