Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:45:05 +0400 | From | Cyrill Gorcunov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm: Ignore VM_SOFTDIRTY on VMA merging, v2 |
| |
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 01:02:35PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 19:14:45 +0400 Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote: > > > VM_SOFTDIRTY bit affects vma merge routine: if two VMAs has all > > bits in vm_flags matched except dirty bit the kernel can't longer > > merge them and this forces the kernel to generate new VMAs instead. > > Do you intend to alter the brk() and binprm code to set VM_SOFTDIRTY?
brk() will be "dirtified" now with this merge fix. brk do_brk out: ... vma->vm_flags |= VM_SOFTDIRTY;
this will work even if vma get merged, the problem was that earlier we tried to merge without VM_SOFTDIRTY flag. And matcher failed.
do_brk flags = VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS | VM_ACCOUNT | mm->def_flags; vma = vma_merge(mm, prev, addr, addr + len, flags, NULL, NULL, pgoff, NULL); if (vma) goto out; ... out: ... vma->vm_flags |= VM_SOFTDIRTY;
That said I'm not really sure now if I should alert @flags in code above. Should I add VM_SOFTDIRTY into @flags for clarity?
Same for binprm -- the vma allocated for bprm->vma is dirtified __bprm_mm_init vma->vm_flags = VM_SOFTDIRTY | VM_STACK_FLAGS | VM_STACK_INCOMPLETE_SETUP;
then setup_arg_pages calls mprotect_fixup with @vm_flags having dirty bit set thus it'll be propagated to vma
mprotect_fixup ... vma->vm_flags = newflags;
the @newflags will have dirty bit set from caller code.
Or you mean something else which I'm missing?
| |