[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YP5wUxx/TflLP6dq@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date: Mon, 26 Jul 2021 10:20:35 +0200
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
To: Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Roman Gushchin <guro@...com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian@...uner.io>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>, jengelh@...i.de,
Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: introduce process_mrelease system call
On Thu 22-07-21 19:03:56, Shakeel Butt wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 22, 2021 at 6:14 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > +
> > + mmap_read_lock(mm);
>
> How about mmap_read_trylock(mm) and return -EAGAIN on failure?
Btw. wether there is a non-blocking variant or not we should use
killable waiting to make sure the task calling into this is killable
by userspace (e.g. to implement a timeout based approach).
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists