[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aKisbbkNcuZoT2RB@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 18:44:13 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@...gle.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Harry Yoo <harry.yoo@...cle.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>,
"open list:MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Kalesh Singh <kaleshsingh@...gle.com>,
android-mm <android-mm@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] Unconditionally lock folios when calling rmap_walk()
On Fri, Aug 22, 2025 at 10:29:52AM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> Currently, some callers of rmap_walk() conditionally avoid try-locking
> non-ksm anon folios. This necessitates serialization through anon_vma
... this seems awfully familiar. Why did you send it again after
a bunch of people had already said useful things on that thread?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists