[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Re : vm: weird behaviour when munmapping
On Fri, 2006-11-17 at 14:12 +0000, moreau francis wrote:
> Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > No indeed. You seem confused with remaining and new.
> >
> > It has one VMA (A) it needs to split that into two pieces, it happens to
> > do it like (B,A') where A' is the old VMA object with new a start
> > address, and B is a new VMA object.
> Is there any rules to decide which VMA is the new one ?

The new object is the one allocated using:
new = kmem_cache_alloc(vm_area_cachep, SLAB_KERNEL);

> From what you wrote it seems that we call B the new object because
> it has a new end address...

No, because its newly allocated.

> From my point of view, I called B the old VMA simply because it's
> going to be destroyed...

Please read Mel Gorman's book on memory management to gain a better

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 15:27    [W:0.034 / U:9.304 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site