[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <yp26taqjxput2k5w6jekhnexbp2isqdksckrv2jjxomxswjh6g@f57mxzd62fyt>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2025 11:04:51 -0500
From: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
To: SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@...ux.dev>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 0/4] mm/madvise: remove redundant mmap_lock
operations from process_madvise()
* SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org> [250116 20:31]:
> process_madvise() calls do_madvise() for each address range. Then, each
> do_madvise() invocation holds and releases same mmap_lock. Optimize the
> redundant lock operations by splitting do_madvise() internal logics
> including the mmap_lock operations, and calling the small logics
> directly from process_madvise() in a sequence that removes the redundant
> locking.
>
> Changes from RFC v1 (20250111004618.1566-1-sj@...nel.org)
> - Split out do_madvise() and use those from vector_madvise(), instead of
> adding a flag to do_madvise() (Liam R. Howlett)
I was waiting for a non-RFC to re-examine the series. It looks like a
good clean up.
Do you think you'll send out a non-RFC version soon?
>
> SeongJae Park (4):
> mm/madvise: split out mmap locking operations for madvise()
> mm/madvise: split out madvise input validity check
> mm/madvise: split out madvise() behavior execution
> mm/madvise: remove redundant mmap_lock operations from
> process_madvise()
>
> mm/madvise.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------
> 1 file changed, 103 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
>
>
> base-commit: b43ba6938d01ad4487028592109d4116a28b7afa
> --
> 2.39.5
Powered by blists - more mailing lists