Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CE7EC433EF for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 17:20:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S233967AbhKWRXR (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 12:23:17 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([170.10.133.124]:54100 "EHLO us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233831AbhKWRXQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 12:23:16 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1637688007; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=gyBGpLUvPbnKCHaCkFdWeDZn7pix4sCNzVoEgWtvK2c=; b=U6dYrGMzfj0ORPDwPlCDnzqkofJzXTLAL8fd89ty+hCDl2pdiHFBzxBaTechAuNZL66YA8 E6INjn8cFt6HN3EulLBy6qdApNtFxtYTzwlLGrX8MFywnUwFmhLh0F5Nvp6hj22Ix5zc/y eteUouJMk5lBa3jl2ygbiIy/PQAsNlo= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-554-EUq8APL_OQyFGoggDi9biw-1; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 12:20:06 -0500 X-MC-Unique: EUq8APL_OQyFGoggDi9biw-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id 144-20020a1c0496000000b003305ac0e03aso1520361wme.8 for ; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:20:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=gyBGpLUvPbnKCHaCkFdWeDZn7pix4sCNzVoEgWtvK2c=; b=05IHTBw/dw3CnlaGfNQ50mdcvQC9FW4HHK3mhel/dbyz16YyjXRgYLxaSLarmyctv+ 9kx4WINbV0W/PJdhiEoBd/+vBceGAPbqP6S56I3qrK6iR04EzCTRSyNonRwJlt7zD2NH L4kdpM8UcHVU2c37ApvDtVhClcVRIKC5aY3vQyeinMRpuDg5jcKO8/LholBChPWCdv2z 7cxy8Brg2B7O+25ESoZ2htLFyJdvbBlz6kYPBUocguyz9pwE0A+3DOzaNFZEimbwVGa7 kFvu5fF2XGWjtnxZDXJMJaeNyYlsdXNNXi2aeRLijmlBmAQxza2KK92M6gw5+XogWGe0 eaqA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530dlogHJBDDqYhV1hda7MoRXZzcQ1rLuD90ElBYvHrXoRk2AUHv lYx/4PmYI6sQzwx8wwYosaWWi6TqNQaGv+sH4G2MRhPRViEWYUOLe3kaM32QMC/LMFhL9Q+gKgv 2cSsunPWu/TvGVYFGpfVxZIZJ X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4ed2:: with SMTP id g18mr5030480wmq.18.1637688004937; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:20:04 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyHzPwJ2p5/WOOdzmc+nHTjlVc7DUIz4nCp0iyP/fABbjC15VZ1AabSMkgfpldQB/PZPWH65g== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:4ed2:: with SMTP id g18mr5030451wmq.18.1637688004719; Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:20:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.3.132] (p5b0c6765.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.12.103.101]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s8sm13174651wra.9.2021.11.23.09.20.03 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 23 Nov 2021 09:20:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2021 18:20:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.2.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: split thp synchronously on MADV_DONTNEED Content-Language: en-US To: Shakeel Butt Cc: "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Yang Shi , Zi Yan , Matthew Wilcox , Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20211120201230.920082-1-shakeelb@google.com> <25b36a5c-5bbd-5423-0c67-05cd6c1432a7@redhat.com> <1b30d06d-f9c0-1737-13e6-2d1a7d7b8507@redhat.com> <92fe0c31-b083-28c4-d306-da8a3cd891a3@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 23.11.21 18:17, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 8:57 AM David Hildenbrand wrote: >> > [...] >>>> >>>> I do wonder which these locking contexts are exactly, and if we could >>>> also do the same thing on ordinary munmap -- because I assume it can be >>>> similarly problematic for some applications. >>> >>> This is a good question regarding munmap. One main difference is >>> munmap takes mmap_lock in write mode and usually performance critical >>> applications avoid such operations. >> >> Maybe we can extend it too most page zapping, if that makes things simpler. >> > > Do you mean doing sync THP split for most of page zapping functions > (but only if that makes things simpler)? > Yes -- if there are no downsides. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb