On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 10:13:24PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 03/31, Konstantin Khlebnikov wrote:
> >
> > comment from v2.6.25-6245-g925d1c4 ("procfs task exe symlink"),
> > where all this stuff was introduced:
> >
> > > ...
> > > This avoids pinning the mounted filesystem.
> >
> > So, this logic is hooked into every file mmap/unmmap and vma split/merge just to
> > fix some hypothetical pinning fs from umounting by mm which already unmapped all
> > its executable files, but still alive. Does anyone know any real world example?
>
> This is the question to Matt.
This is where I got the scenario:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2007/7/12/398
Cheers,
-Matt Helsley
PS: I seem to keep coming back to this so I hope folks don't mind if I leave
some more references to make (re)searching this topic easier:
Thread with Cyrill Gorcunov discussing c/r of symlink:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/16/448
Thread with Oleg Nesterov re: cleanups:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/3/5/240
Thread with Alexey Dobriyan re: cleanups:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2009/6/4/625
mainline commit 925d1c401fa6cfd0df5d2e37da8981494ccdec07
Date: Tue Apr 29 01:01:36 2008 -0700
procfs task exe symlink
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>