On 1/20/22 16:54, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 04:06:21PM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>> On 12/1/21 15:30, Liam Howlett wrote:
>> > From: "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > Use the maple tree or VMA iterator instead. This is faster and will
>> > allow us to shrink the VMA.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > Signed-off-by: Liam R. Howlett <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@xxxxxxx>
>>
>> But I think some fixup needed:
>>
>> > @@ -1456,12 +1458,14 @@ void exit_mmap(struct mm_struct *mm)
>> >
>> > mm->total_vm = 0;
>> >
>> > - while ((vma = mm->mmap)) {
>> > - mm->mmap = vma->vm_next;
>> > + mmap_write_lock(mm);
>>
>> If locking was missing, should have been added sooner than now?
>
> I don't think so? This is the exit_mmap() path, so we know nobody
> has access to the mm. We didn't need to hold the lock at this point
> before, but now for_each_vma() will check we're holding the mmap_lock.
It has crossed my mind that it is there to make asserts happy, in which case
a clarifying comment would be useful.
>> > + for_each_vma(vmi, vma) {
>> > delete_vma_from_mm(vma);
>> > delete_vma(mm, vma);
>> > cond_resched();
>> > }
>> > + __mt_destroy(&mm->mm_mt);
>>
>> And this at the point mm_mt was added?
>
> You mean we should have been calling __mt_destroy() earlier in the
> patch series?
Yeah.
> Umm ... I'll defer to Liam on that one.
