On Tue 21-04-20 11:53:02, Li Xinhai wrote: > On 2020-04-20 at 20:06 Michal Hocko wrote: [...] > > Because from my current understanding it would > >only make WIPEONFORK vmas rmap walks less efficient. Or is there any > >other functional issue? > #1 issue is for case WIPEONFORK, #2 issue for all other cases of anonymous VMA dup > (i.e., when parent vmas is currently sharing anon_vma among themself, child vma will > share its parent vma's anon_vma). OK, it was not really clear to me that also !WIPEONFORK vmas are affected. Thanks for the clarification. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
