On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 3:09 AM, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 28 May 2014 11:59:55 +0400 Konstantin Khlebnikov <koct9i@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> try_to_munlock() searches other mlocked vmas, it never unmaps pages. >> There is no reason for invalidation because ptes are left unchanged. >> >> ... >> >> --- a/mm/rmap.c >> +++ b/mm/rmap.c >> @@ -1225,7 +1225,7 @@ int try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma, >> >> out_unmap: >> pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl); >> - if (ret != SWAP_FAIL) >> + if (ret != SWAP_FAIL && TTU_ACTION(flags) != TTU_MUNLOCK) >> mmu_notifier_invalidate_page(mm, address); >> out: >> return ret; > > The patch itself looks reasonable but there is no such thing as > try_to_munlock(). I rewrote the changelog thusly: Wait, what? I do have function with this name in my sources. It calls rmap_walk with callback try_to_unmap_one and action TTU_MUNLOCK. This is the place where TTU_MUNLOCK is used, I've mentioned it as entry point of this logic. > > : In its munmap mode, try_to_unmap_one() searches other mlocked vmas, it > : never unmaps pages. There is no reason for invalidation because ptes are > : left unchanged. > > Also, the name try_to_unmap_one() is now pretty inaccurate/incomplete. > Perhaps if someone is feeling enthusiastic they might think up a better > name for the various try_to_unmap functions and see if we can > appropriately document try_to_unmap_one(). I thought about moving mlock part out of try_to_unmap_one() into separate function, but normal unmap needs this part too... Anyway I want to make try_to_unmap_one() static, this is internal function now. -- 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>