[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZIN/VSepGu9HAi42@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:36:53 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, hannes@...xchg.org, mhocko@...e.com,
josef@...icpanda.com, jack@...e.cz, ldufour@...ux.ibm.com,
laurent.dufour@...ibm.com, michel@...pinasse.org,
liam.howlett@...cle.com, jglisse@...gle.com, vbabka@...e.cz,
minchan@...gle.com, dave@...olabs.net, punit.agrawal@...edance.com,
lstoakes@...il.com, hdanton@...a.com, apopple@...dia.com,
peterx@...hat.com, ying.huang@...el.com, david@...hat.com,
yuzhao@...gle.com, dhowells@...hat.com, hughd@...gle.com,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, brauner@...nel.org,
pasha.tatashin@...een.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kernel-team@...roid.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] mm: implement folio wait under VMA lock
On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Oh, after rereading I think you are suggesting to replace
> folio_lock_or_retry()/__folio_lock_or_retry() with
> folio_lock_fault()/__folio_lock_fault(), not to add them. Is that
> right?
Right. It only has two callers. And I'd do that before adding the
FAULT_VMA_LOCK handling to it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists