[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <621612d7-c537-3971-9520-a3dec7b43cb4@suse.cz>
Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2022 13:18:25 +0200
From: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...ux.dev>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michel Lespinasse <michel@...pinasse.org>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...gle.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <liam.howlett@...cle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
Laurent Dufour <laurent.dufour@...ibm.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, dhowells@...hat.com,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...gle.com>,
kernel-team <kernel-team@...roid.com>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH RESEND 00/28] per-VMA locks proposal
On 9/28/22 04:28, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 2:35 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/2/22 01:26, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Two complaints so far:
>> >> - I don't like the vma_mark_locked() name. To me it says that the caller
>> >> already took or is taking the lock and this function is just marking that
>> >> we're holding the lock, but it's really taking a different type of lock. But
>> >> this function can block, it really is taking a lock, so it should say that.
>> >>
>> >> This is AFAIK a new concept, not sure I'm going to have anything good either,
>> >> but perhaps vma_lock_multiple()?
>> >
>> > I'm open to name suggestions but vma_lock_multiple() is a bit
>> > confusing to me. Will wait for more suggestions.
>>
>> Well, it does act like a vma_write_lock(), no? So why not that name. The
>> checking function for it is even called vma_assert_write_locked().
>>
>> We just don't provide a single vma_write_unlock(), but a
>> vma_mark_unlocked_all(), that could be instead named e.g.
>> vma_write_unlock_all().
>> But it's called on a mm, so maybe e.g. mm_vma_write_unlock_all()?
>
> Thank you for your suggestions, Vlastimil! vma_write_lock() sounds
> good to me. For vma_mark_unlocked_all() replacement, I would prefer
> vma_write_unlock_all() which keeps the vma_write_XXX naming pattern to
OK.
> indicate that these are operating on the same locks. If the fact that
> it accepts mm_struct as a parameter is an issue then maybe
> vma_write_unlock_mm() ?
Sounds good!
>>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists