On Tue 11-07-17 16:38:46, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 12:26 PM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 07/11/2017 08:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >> On Tue 11-07-17 08:26:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>> On 07/11/2017 08:03 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you telling me that two if conditions cause more than a second
> >>>> difference? That sounds suspicious.
> >>>
> >>> It's removing also a call to get_unmapped_area(), AFAICS. That means a
> >>> vma search?
> >>
> >> Ohh, right. I have somehow missed that. Is this removal intentional?
> >
> > I think it is: "Checking for availability of virtual address range at
> > the end of the VMA for the incremental size is also reduntant at this
> > point."
> >
> >> The
> >> changelog is silent about it.
> >
> > It doesn't explain why it's redundant, indeed. Unfortunately, the commit
> > f106af4e90ea ("fix checks for expand-in-place mremap") which added this,
> > also doesn't explain why it's needed.
>
> Its redundant because there are calls to get_unmapped_area() down the
> line in the function whose failure will anyway fail the expansion of
> the VMA.
mremap code is quite complex and I am not sure you are right here.
Anyway, please make sure you document why you believe those checks are
not needed when resubmitting your patch.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
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>
