On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 05:54:17PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 08:52:34AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:26:29AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> >On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 11:19:37AM +0200, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> >> On 8/14/19 8:57 AM, Wei Yang wrote:
>> >> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:16:11PM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
>> >> >>Btw, is there any good reason we don't use a list_head for vma linkage?
>> >> >
>> >> > Not sure, maybe there is some historical reason?
>> >>
>> >> Seems it was single-linked until 2010 commit 297c5eee3724 ("mm: make the vma
>> >> list be doubly linked") and I guess it was just simpler to add the vm_prev link.
>> >>
>> >> Conversion to list_head might be an interesting project for some "advanced
>> >> beginner" in the kernel :)
>> >
>> >I'm working to get rid of vm_prev and vm_next, so it would probably be
>> >wasted effort.
>>
>> You mean replace it with list_head?
>
>No, replace the rbtree with a new tree. https://lwn.net/Articles/787629/
Sounds interesting.
While I am not sure the plan is settled down, and how long it would take to
replace the rb_tree with maple tree. I guess it would probably take some time
to get merged upstream.
IMHO, it would be good to have this cleanup in current kernel. Do you agree?
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
