On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 11:09:00PM +0800, Pengfei Li wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 9:49 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 08:02:13PM +0800, Pengfei Li wrote:
> >
> > I don't think you need struct union struct union. Because llist_node
> > is just a pointer, you can get the same savings with just:
> >
> > union {
> > struct llist_node purge_list;
> > struct vm_struct *vm;
> > unsigned long subtree_max_size;
> > };
> >
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> As you said, I did this in v3.
> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/11031507/
>
> The reason why I use struct union struct in v4 is that I want to
> express "in the tree" and "in the purge list" are two completely
> isolated cases.
>
I think that is odd. Your v3 was fine to me. All that mess with
struct union struct makes it weird, so having just comments there
is enough, imho.
<snip>
- __free_vmap_area(va);
+ merge_or_add_vmap_area(va,
+ &free_vmap_area_root, &free_vmap_area_list);
+
<snip>
Should not be done in this patch. I can re-spin "mm/vmalloc: do not keep unpurged areas in the busy tree"
and add it there. So, as a result we will not modify unlink_va() function.
Thus, this patch will reduce the size only, and will not touch other parts.
--
Vlad Rezki
