[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZhhV3PKgEX9d7_vA@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 22:27:56 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Always sanity check anon_vma first for per-vma locks
On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 05:12:02PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> The question is whether that's intended to make it as complicated. For
> example, why don't we check anon_vma for anonymous too later when prepare
> anon_vma, however we do it late for file memory. AFAICT there's nothing
> special with file memory in this case.
Yes, it's absolutely intended. If anything, anon memory is the special
case that checks up-front.
Congratulations on adding additional instructions to the common case.
I don't understand why you persist with your nonsense. Please stop.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists