[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y86lZxGEQOBv3Hmw@x1n>
Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2023 10:19:03 -0500
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>
Cc: James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Mina Almasry <almasrymina@...gle.com>,
Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@...gle.com>,
Manish Mishra <manish.mishra@...anix.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 21/46] hugetlb: use struct hugetlb_pte for
walk_hugetlb_range
Hi, Mike,
On Thu, Jan 19, 2023 at 03:44:25PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 01/19/23 18:07, Peter Xu wrote:
> >
> > Actually when revisiting the locks I'm getting a bit confused on whether
> > the vma lock is needed if pmd sharing is anyway forbidden for HGM. I
> > raised a question in the other patch of MADV_COLLAPSE, maybe they're
> > related questions so we can keep it there.
>
> I can quickly answer that. Yes. The vma lock is also being used for
> fault/truncation synchronization. Commit e700898fa075 make sure it is
> even used on architectures that do not support PMD sharing.
>
> I had come up with a rather ugly method of using the fault mutex for
> fault/truncation synchronization, but using the vma lock was more
> elegant.
Thanks for answering, I'll need to read some more on truncation later.
Before that, since COLLAPSE will already require the i_mmap_rwsem write
lock already, does it mean it is naturally race-free against truncation
even without vma lock?
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists