[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <55hskn2iz5ixsl6wvupnhx7hkzcvx2u4muswvzi4wuqplmu2uo@rj72ypyeksjy>
Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 00:56:41 -0700
From: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
To: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-trace-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
peterz@...radead.org, oleg@...hat.com, rostedt@...dmis.org, mhiramat@...nel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, jolsa@...nel.org,
paulmck@...nel.org, willy@...radead.org, surenb@...gle.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mjguzik@...il.com, brauner@...nel.org, jannh@...gle.com,
mhocko@...nel.org, vbabka@...e.cz, hannes@...xchg.org, Liam.Howlett@...cle.com,
lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 tip/perf/core 2/4] mm: switch to 64-bit
mm_lock_seq/vm_lock_seq on 64-bit architectures
On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 01:56:42PM GMT, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
> To increase mm->mm_lock_seq robustness, switch it from int to long, so
> that it's a 64-bit counter on 64-bit systems and we can stop worrying
> about it wrapping around in just ~4 billion iterations. Same goes for
> VMA's matching vm_lock_seq, which is derived from mm_lock_seq.
>
> I didn't use __u64 outright to keep 32-bit architectures unaffected, but
> if it seems important enough, I have nothing against using __u64.
>
> Suggested-by: Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii@...nel.org>
Reviewed-by: Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists