[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y5NIoqXlAvrXkCOM@x1n>
Date: Fri, 9 Dec 2022 09:39:30 -0500
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/10] mm/hugetlb: Make walk_hugetlb_range() safe to
pmd unshare
On Fri, Dec 09, 2022 at 11:24:55AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> For such cases, it would be good to have any evidence that it really helps.
I don't know much on the s390 path, but if a process has a large hugetlb
vma, even MADV_DONTNEED will be blocked for whatever long time if there's
another process or thread scanning pagemap for this vma.
Would this justify a bit?
It's just that the vma lock is taken write far more than mmap_lock taken
write I think, meanwhile what we need here is only release the lock and
retake, nothing else. It didn't make things over complicated, IMO.
No strong ipinion from my side, as I said to me it's really low hanging
fruit. If you still think that doesn't justify and if Mike doesn't have a
preference either I can just drop it for later.
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists