On Tue 11-07-17 08:56:04, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 07/11/2017 08:50 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 11-07-17 08:26:40, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >> On 07/11/2017 08:03 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Are you telling me that two if conditions cause more than a second
> >>> difference? That sounds suspicious.
> >>
> >> It's removing also a call to get_unmapped_area(), AFAICS. That means a
> >> vma search?
> >
> > Ohh, right. I have somehow missed that. Is this removal intentional?
>
> I think it is: "Checking for availability of virtual address range at
> the end of the VMA for the incremental size is also reduntant at this
> point."
I though this referred to this check
if (vma->vm_next && vma->vm_next->vm_start < end)
becuase get_unampped_area with MAP_FIXED doesn't really check
anything. It will simply return the given address. Btw. this also rules
out find_vma.
> > The
> > changelog is silent about it.
>
> It doesn't explain why it's redundant, indeed. Unfortunately, the commit
> f106af4e90ea ("fix checks for expand-in-place mremap") which added this,
> also doesn't explain why it's needed.
Because it doesn't do anything AFAICS.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
