On Fri 23-09-16 17:53:51, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/23, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 23-09-16 15:56:36, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > I think we can simplify this patch. And imo make it better. How about
> >
> > it is certainly less subtle because it doesn't report "sub-vmas".
> >
> > > if (last_addr) {
> > > vma = find_vma(mm, last_addr - 1);
> > > if (vma && vma->vm_start <= last_addr)
> > > vma = m_next_vma(priv, vma);
> > > if (vma)
> > > return vma;
> > > }
> >
> > we would still miss a VMA if the last one got shrunk/split
>
> Not sure I understand what you mean... If the last one was split
> we probably should not report the new vma.
Right, VMA split is less of a problem. I meant to say that if the
last_vma->vm_end got lower for whatever reason then we could miss a VMA
right after. We actually might want to display such a VMA because it
could be a completely new one. We just do not know whether it is a
former split with enlarged VMA or a completely new one
[ old VMA ] Hole [ VMA ]
[ old VMA ][ New VMa ] [ VMA ]
> Nevermind, in any case yes, sure, this can't "fix" other corner cases.
Agreed, or at least I do not see an easy way for that.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
