On 10/15/2013 07:46 PM, Chen Gang wrote:
> On 10/15/2013 06:34 PM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
>> > Revert 1ecfd533f4c5 ("mm/mremap.c: call pud_free() after fail calling
>> > pmd_alloc()"). The original code was correct: pud_alloc(), pmd_alloc(),
>> > pte_alloc_map() ensure that the pud, pmd, pt is already allocated, and
>> > seldom do they need to allocate; on failure, upper levels are freed if
>> > appropriate by the subsequent do_munmap(). Whereas 1ecfd533f4c5 did an
>> > unconditional pud_free() of a most-likely still-in-use pud: saved only
>> > by the near-impossiblity of pmd_alloc() failing.
>> >
> What you said above sounds reasonable to me, but better to provide the
> information below:
>
> - pud_free() for pgd_alloc() in "arch/arm/mm/pgd.c".
>
It is correct, it is for 'new_pgd' which not come from 'mm'.
> - pud_free() for init_stub_pte() in "arch/um/kernel/skas/mmu.c".
>
For me, it need improvement, I have sent related patch for it.
> - more details about do_munmap(), (e.g. do it need mm->page_table_lock)
> or more details about the demo "most-likely still-in-use pud ...".
>
According to "Documentation/vm/locking", 'mm->page_table_lock' is for
using vma list, so not need it when its related vmas are detached from
using vma list.
The related work flow:
do_munmap()->
detach_vmas_to_be_unmapped(); /* so not need mm->page_table_lock */
unmap_region() ->
free_pgtables() ->
free_pgd_range() ->
free_pud_range() ->
free_pmd_range() ->
free_pte_range() ->
pmd_clear();
pte_free_tlb();
pud_clear();
pmd_free_tlb();
pgd_clear();
pud_free_tlb();
Thanks.
>
> Hmm... I am not quite sure about the 3 things, and I will/should
> continue analysing/learning about them, but better to get your reply. :-)
--
Chen Gang
--
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/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>