Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
Date:   Wed, 9 Feb 2022 08:21:17 -0800 (PST)
From:   Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] mm/munlock: rework of mlock+munlock page
 handling
In-Reply-To: <YgPfX+/f0ksBpx6G@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Message-ID: <147388c6-eb7-5c58-79a-7a8279c27fd@google.com>
References: <8e4356d-9622-a7f0-b2c-f116b5f2efea@google.com> <YgPfX+/f0ksBpx6G@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 9 Feb 2022, Michal Hocko wrote:
> 
> So far I have only managed to read through the series and trying to put
> all the pieces together (so far I have given up on the THP part) and my
> undestanding is far from complete. But I have to say I like the general
> approach and overall simplification.

Many thanks for looking, Michal, and for all the positivity!

> 
> The only thing that is not entirely clear to me at the moment is why you
> have chosen to ignore already mapped LOCKONFAULT pages. They will
> eventually get sorted out during the reclaim/migration but this can
> backfire if too many pages have been pre-faulted before LOCKONFAULT
> call. Maybe not an interesting case in the first place but I am still
> wondering why you have chosen that way.

I'm puzzled: what makes you think I'm ignoring already mapped LOCKONFAULT
pages?  I'd consider that a bug.

It is the case, isn't it, that a VM_LOCKONFAULT area always has VM_LOCKED
set too?  If I've got that wrong, yes, I'll need to revisit conditions.

> 
> I will be off next couple of days and plan to revisit this afterwards
> (should time allow). Anyway thanks a lot Hugh!
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs