[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20230111195250.cj27sg4yoslbdjdp@offworld>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:52:50 -0800
From: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
jglisse@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
hannes@...xchg.org, mgorman@...hsingularity.net,
willy@...radead.org, liam.howlett@...cle.com, peterz@...radead.org,
ldufour@...ux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@...ibm.com,
paulmck@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org, songliubraving@...com,
peterx@...hat.com, david@...hat.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
hughd@...gle.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de, kent.overstreet@...ux.dev,
punit.agrawal@...edance.com, lstoakes@...il.com,
peterjung1337@...il.com, rientjes@...gle.com,
axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com, tatashin@...gle.com,
edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com, gurua@...gle.com,
arjunroy@...gle.com, soheil@...gle.com, hughlynch@...gle.com,
leewalsh@...gle.com, posk@...gle.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/41] mm: introduce vma->vm_flags modifier functions
On Wed, 11 Jan 2023, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 8:13 AM Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2023, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>>
>> >To keep vma locking correctness when vm_flags are modified, add modifier
>> >functions to be used whenever flags are updated.
>>
>> How about moving this patch and the ones that follow out of this series,
>> into a preliminary patchset? It would reduce the amount of noise in the
>> per-vma lock changes, which would then only be adding the needed
>> vma_write_lock()ing.
>
>How about moving those prerequisite patches to the beginning of the
>patchset (before maple_tree RCU changes)? I feel like they do belong
>in the patchset because as a standalone patchset it would be unclear
>why I'm adding all these accessor functions and introducing this
>churn. Would that be acceptable?
imo the abstraction of vm_flags handling is worth being standalone and is
easier to be picked up before a more complex locking scheme change. But
either way, it's up to you.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
Powered by blists - more mailing lists