[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpENo+xJOFjy7geYJjH54cT6e9t-Qw18AvcwNrcE2AMicw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2023 18:16:48 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
jirislaby@...nel.org, jacobly.alt@...il.com,
holger@...lied-asynchrony.com, hdegoede@...hat.com,
michel@...pinasse.org, jglisse@...gle.com, mhocko@...e.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, paulmck@...nel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, will@...nel.org, luto@...nel.org,
songliubraving@...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, chriscli@...gle.com,
axelrasmussen@...gle.com, joelaf@...gle.com, minchan@...gle.com,
rppt@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com, shakeelb@...gle.com,
tatashin@...gle.com, edumazet@...gle.com, gthelen@...gle.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/2] mm: disable CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK until its fixed
On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 5:49 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 5:44 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 17:32:09 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 5:30 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Jul 5, 2023 at 5:24 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, 5 Jul 2023 13:33:26 -0700 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I was hoping we could re-enable VMA locks in 6.4 once we get more
> > > > > > confirmations that the problem is gone. Is that not possible once the
> > > > > > BROKEN dependency is merged?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think "no". By doing this we're effectively backporting a minor
> > > > > performance optimization, which isn't a thing we'd normally do.
> > > >
> > > > In that case, maybe for 6.4 we send the fix and only disable it by
> > > > default without marking BROKEN? That way we still have a way to enable
> > > > it if desired?
> > >
> > > I'm preparing the next version with Liam's corrections. If the above
> > > option I suggested is acceptable I can send a modified second patch
> > > which would not have BROKEN dependency.
> >
> > I think just mark it broken and move on. At some later time we can
> > consider backporting the fixes into 6.4.x and reenabling, but I don't
> > think it's likely that we'll do this.
>
> Uh, ok. I'll send the next version shortly with the patch fixing the
> issue and another one marking it BROKEN. Hopefully in the next version
> we can roll it our more carefully, removing BROKEN dependency but
> keeping it disabled by default?
v4 is posted at
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230706011400.2949242-1-surenb@google.com/
Thanks,
Suren.
>
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists