[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <28de768b-c740-37b3-ea5a-8e2cb07d2bdc@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2018 13:48:35 -0700
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: willy@...radead.org, ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
kirill@...temov.name, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v6 PATCH 2/2] mm: mmap: zap pages with read mmap_sem in
munmap
On 8/6/18 1:41 PM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 06-08-18 09:46:30, Yang Shi wrote:
>>
>> On 8/6/18 2:40 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Fri 03-08-18 14:01:58, Yang Shi wrote:
>>>> On 8/3/18 2:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>>> On Fri 27-07-18 02:10:14, Yang Shi wrote:
> [...]
>>>>>> If the vma has VM_LOCKED | VM_HUGETLB | VM_PFNMAP or uprobe, they are
>>>>>> considered as special mappings. They will be dealt with before zapping
>>>>>> pages with write mmap_sem held. Basically, just update vm_flags.
>>>>> Well, I think it would be safer to simply fallback to the current
>>>>> implementation with these mappings and deal with them on top. This would
>>>>> make potential issues easier to bisect and partial reverts as well.
>>>> Do you mean just call do_munmap()? It sounds ok. Although we may waste some
>>>> cycles to repeat what has done, it sounds not too bad since those special
>>>> mappings should be not very common.
>>> VM_HUGETLB is quite spread. Especially for DB workloads.
>> Wait a minute. In this way, it sounds we go back to my old implementation
>> with special handling for those mappings with write mmap_sem held, right?
> Yes, I would really start simple and add further enhacements on top.
If updating vm_flags with read lock is safe in this case, we don't have
to do this. The only reason for this special handling is about vm_flags
update.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists