From: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Cc: <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Remove obsolete comment in vma_has_reserves()
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 11:08:12 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <43b7a6e0-1940-ebe8-4005-d6d8021653c3@huawei.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8f2f3bac-5b33-a560-9b84-b50972739636@oracle.com>
Hi:
On 2021/2/5 5:32, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 2/4/21 3:15 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> Shared mappings are allowed to be created without reservations since
>> commit c37f9fb11c97 ("hugetlb: allow huge page mappings to be created
>> without reservations"). Remove this obsolete comment which may cause
>> confusing.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> mm/hugetlb.c | 1 -
>> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> index 9501ec6ad517..cf82629319ed 100644
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -998,7 +998,6 @@ static bool vma_has_reserves(struct vm_area_struct *vma, long chg)
>> return false;
>> }
>>
>> - /* Shared mappings always use reserves */
>
> I would not say the comment is entirely obsolete or does not apply here.
>
> As mentioned in the commit message, commit c37f9fb11c97 allowed hugetlb
> mappings to be created without reserves. It does this by supporting the
> MAP_NORESERVE flag which corresponds to the VM_NORESERVE vma flag.
>
> Right before this comment, a check is made for VM_NORESERVE and the
> routine will return. Therefore, by the time we get to this comment
> we know MAP_NORESERVE does not apply and there are reserves associated
> the shared mapping. In this case the comment is making a distinction
> between shared mappings which will always have reserves, and private
> mappings which may or may not have reserves depending on ownership.
>
Yes. If I think about it this way, the comment is really making a distinction
between shared mappings and private mappings when not in VM_NORESERVE case.
> I would suggest either leaving the comment as is, or modifying to include
I'd like to leave the comment as is. Many thanks for detailed explanation.
> the information above. To me, the three distinct blocks of code handling
> the NORESERVE, shared and private cases makes things fairly clear and
> the comment does apply in that context.
>
Many thanks again. :)
prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-05 3:08 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-04 11:15 Miaohe Lin
2021-02-04 21:32 ` Mike Kravetz
2021-02-05 3:08 ` Miaohe Lin [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=43b7a6e0-1940-ebe8-4005-d6d8021653c3@huawei.com \
--to=linmiaohe@huawei.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox