From: Davidlohr Bueso <davidlohr@hp.com>
To: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, mingo@kernel.org,
peterz@infradead.org, riel@redhat.com, mgorman@suse.de,
aswin@hp.com, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] mm/rmap: share the i_mmap_rwsem
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 13:48:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1401137322.12982.5.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1405261216460.3411@eggly.anvils>
On Mon, 2014-05-26 at 12:35 -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Thu, 22 May 2014, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:
>
> > Similarly to rmap_walk_anon() and collect_procs_anon(),
> > there is opportunity to share the lock in rmap_walk_file()
> > and collect_procs_file() for file backed pages.
>
> And lots of other places, no? I welcome i_mmap_rwsem, but I think
> you're approaching it wrongly to separate this off from 2/5, then
> follow anon_vma for the places that can be converted to lock_read().
Sure, but as you can imagine, the reasoning behind it is simplicity and
bisectability. 2/5 is easy to commit typo-like errors, and end up
locking instead of unlocking and vice versa. I ran into a few while
testing and wanted to make life easier for reviewers.
> If you go back through 2/5 and study the context of each, I think
> you'll find most make no modification to the tree, and can well
> use the lock_read() rather than the lock_write().
I was planning on revisiting some of that. I have no concrete examples
yet, but I agree, there could very well be further opportunity to share
the lock in read-only paths. This 4/5 is just the first, and most
obvious, step towards improving the usage of the i_mmap lock.
> I could be wrong, but I don't think there are any hidden gotchas.
> There certainly are in the anon_vma case (where THP makes special
> use of the anon_vma lock), and used to be in the i_mmap_lock case
> (when invalidation had to be single-threaded across cond_rescheds),
> but I think i_mmap_rwsem should be straightforward.
>
> Sure, it's safe to use the lock_write() variant, but please don't
> prefer it to lock_read() without good reason.
I will dig deeper (probably for 3.17 now), but I really believe this is
the correct way of splitting the patches for this particular series.
Thanks,
Davidlohr
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-05-26 20:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-05-23 3:33 [PATCH 0/5] mm: i_mmap_mutex to rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 3:33 ` [PATCH 1/5] mm,fs: introduce helpers around i_mmap_mutex Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 17:16 ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-23 3:33 ` [PATCH 2/5] mm: use new helper functions around the i_mmap_mutex Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 17:16 ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-23 3:33 ` [PATCH 3/5] mm: convert i_mmap_mutex to rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 17:33 ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-23 3:33 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm/rmap: share the i_mmap_rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 18:35 ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-26 19:35 ` Hugh Dickins
2014-05-26 20:48 ` Davidlohr Bueso [this message]
2014-05-23 3:33 ` [PATCH 5/5] mm: rename leftover i_mmap_mutex Davidlohr Bueso
2014-05-23 18:36 ` Rik van Riel
2014-05-30 2:20 ` [PATCH 0/5] mm: i_mmap_mutex to rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
2014-06-02 20:08 ` Andrew Morton
2014-06-02 20:31 ` Davidlohr Bueso
2014-06-02 23:54 ` Hugh Dickins
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2013-06-25 0:21 Davidlohr Bueso
2013-06-25 0:21 ` [PATCH 4/5] mm/rmap: share the i_mmap_rwsem Davidlohr Bueso
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1401137322.12982.5.camel@buesod1.americas.hpqcorp.net \
--to=davidlohr@hp.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aswin@hp.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox