On Thu, 2011-02-17 at 10:30 -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > +void __put_anon_vma(struct anon_vma *anon_vma)
> > +{
> > + if (anon_vma->root != anon_vma)
> > + put_anon_vma(anon_vma->root);
> > + anon_vma_free(anon_vma);
> > }
>
> So this makes me nervous. It looks like recursion.
>
> Now, I don't think we can ever get a chain of these things (because
> the root should be the root of everything),
Exactly.
> but I still preferred the
> older code that made that "one-level root" case explicit, and didn't
> have recursion.
>
> IOW, even though it should be entirely equivalent, I think I'd really
> prefer something like
>
> void __put_anon_vma(struct anon_vma *anon_vma)
> {
> struct anon_vma *root = anon_vma->root;
>
> if (root != anon_vma && atomic_dec_and_test(&root->refcount))
> anon_vma_free(root);
> anon_vma_free(anon_vma);
> }
>
> instead. Exactly because it makes it very clear that the "root" is a
> root, and we're not doing some possibly arbitrarily deep list like the
> dentry tree (which avoids recursion by open-coding its freeing as a
> loop).
>
> Hmm? (The above is obviously untested, maybe it has some stupid bug)
Looks about right, I'll give it a spin.
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>