On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 06:59:39PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 09:22:44AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
>> 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?
>
>The three cleanups you've posted are fine. Doing more work (ie the
>list_head) seems like wasted effort to me.
Ah, got your point. I misunderstand it.
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
