[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe : vm: weird behaviour when munmapping
Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 12:50 +0000, moreau francis wrote:
>> lower vma: 0x2aaae000 -> 0x2aaaf000
>> upper vma: 0x2aaaf000 -> 0x2aab2000
> that is the remaining VMA, not the new one; we trigger this code:
> /* Does it split the last one? */
> last = find_vma(mm, end);
> if (last && end > last->vm_start) {
> int error = split_vma(mm, last, end, 1);
> if (error)
> return error;
> }
> So, since its the last VMA that needs to be split (there is only one),
> the new VMA is constructed before the old one. Like so:
> Then you proceed closing, in this case the new one: B.

Sorry but I don't understand why B is said to be the new one. OK
I can see why from the bit of code you pointed out but from a
logical point of view (ok maybe be me only) I'm unmapping 'BBBB'
segment, so 'BBBB' is going to be destroyed and therefore A is
the new one. Thereferore I would expect close(B), open(A)...

no ?


Découvrez une nouvelle façon d'obtenir des réponses à toutes vos questions !
Profitez des connaissances, des opinions et des expériences des internautes sur Yahoo! Questions/Réponses
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-17 14:45    [W:0.047 / U:0.188 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site