[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpF3j5Sx+D5p5QPCHP4jcWZUiYm=FfUNYhc6QyHZQvDgpw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:48:13 -0800
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, michel@...pinasse.org,
jglisse@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org,
mgorman@...hsingularity.net, dave@...olabs.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 17/41] mm/mmap: move VMA locking before
anon_vma_lock_write call
On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:33 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 18-01-23 10:09:29, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:23 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue 17-01-23 18:01:01, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:16 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon 09-01-23 12:53:12, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > Move VMA flag modification (which now implies VMA locking) before
> > > > > > anon_vma_lock_write to match the locking order of page fault handler.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this changelog assumes per vma locking in the #PF?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, you are right. Page fault handlers do not use per-vma locks yet
> > > > but the changelog already talks about that. Maybe I should change it
> > > > to simply:
> > > > ```
> > > > Move VMA flag modification (which now implies VMA locking) before
> > > > vma_adjust_trans_huge() to ensure the modifications are done after VMA
> > > > has been locked.
> > >
> > > Because ....
> >
> > because vma_adjust_trans_huge() modifies the VMA and such
> > modifications should be done under VMA write-lock protection.
>
> So it will become:
> Move VMA flag modification (which now implies VMA locking) before
> vma_adjust_trans_huge() to ensure the modifications are done after VMA
> has been locked. Because vma_adjust_trans_huge() modifies the VMA and such
> modifications should be done under VMA write-lock protection.
>
> which is effectivelly saying
> vma_adjust_trans_huge() modifies the VMA and such modifications should
> be done under VMA write-lock protection so move VMA flag modifications
> before so all of them are covered by the same write protection.
>
> right?
Yes, and the wording in the latter version is simpler to understand
IMO, so I would like to adopt it. Do you agree?
> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists