On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
>
> On Fri 23-09-16 15:56:36, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > I think we can simplify this patch. And imo make it better. How about
>
> it is certainly less subtle because it doesn't report "sub-vmas".
>
> > if (last_addr) {
> > vma = find_vma(mm, last_addr - 1);
> > if (vma && vma->vm_start <= last_addr)
> > vma = m_next_vma(priv, vma);
> > if (vma)
> > return vma;
> > }
>
> we would still miss a VMA if the last one got shrunk/split
Not sure I understand what you mean... If the last one was split
we probably should not report the new vma. Nevermind, in any case
yes, sure, this can't "fix" other corner cases.
> So definitely an improvement but
> I guess we really want to document that only full reads provide a
> consistent (at some moment in time) output.
or all the threads were stopped. Agreed. And again, this applies to
any file in /proc.
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>