Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 11 Jan 2023 11:52:50 -0800
From:   Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, michel@lespinasse.org,
        jglisse@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
        willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        ldufour@linux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com,
        peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        hughd@google.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, kent.overstreet@linux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, lstoakes@gmail.com,
        peterjung1337@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com,
        axelrasmussen@google.com, joelaf@google.com, minchan@google.com,
        jannh@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, tatashin@google.com,
        edumazet@google.com, gthelen@google.com, gurua@google.com,
        arjunroy@google.com, soheil@google.com, hughlynch@google.com,
        leewalsh@google.com, posk@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/41] mm: introduce vma->vm_flags modifier functions
Message-ID: <20230111195250.cj27sg4yoslbdjdp@offworld>
Mail-Followup-To: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, michel@lespinasse.org,
        jglisse@google.com, mhocko@suse.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        hannes@cmpxchg.org, mgorman@techsingularity.net,
        willy@infradead.org, liam.howlett@oracle.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        ldufour@linux.ibm.com, laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com,
        paulmck@kernel.org, luto@kernel.org, songliubraving@fb.com,
        peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com,
        hughd@google.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, kent.overstreet@linux.dev,
        punit.agrawal@bytedance.com, lstoakes@gmail.com,
        peterjung1337@gmail.com, rientjes@google.com,
        axelrasmussen@google.com, joelaf@google.com, minchan@google.com,
        jannh@google.com, shakeelb@google.com, tatashin@google.com,
        edumazet@google.com, gthelen@google.com, gurua@google.com,
        arjunroy@google.com, soheil@google.com, hughlynch@google.com,
        leewalsh@google.com, posk@google.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
References: <20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20230109205336.3665937-14-surenb@google.com>
 <20230111154726.stadwtzicabwh5u5@offworld>
 <CAJuCfpFmO310qoFJr2EKHRavLx87k6tVkHO3-JCE0s4q5g+TCw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpFmO310qoFJr2EKHRavLx87k6tVkHO3-JCE0s4q5g+TCw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20220429
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, 11 Jan 2023, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:

>On Wed, Jan 11, 2023 at 8:13 AM Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 09 Jan 2023, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>>
>> >To keep vma locking correctness when vm_flags are modified, add modifier
>> >functions to be used whenever flags are updated.
>>
>> How about moving this patch and the ones that follow out of this series,
>> into a preliminary patchset? It would reduce the amount of noise in the
>> per-vma lock changes, which would then only be adding the needed
>> vma_write_lock()ing.
>
>How about moving those prerequisite patches to the beginning of the
>patchset (before maple_tree RCU changes)? I feel like they do belong
>in the patchset because as a standalone patchset it would be unclear
>why I'm adding all these accessor functions and introducing this
>churn. Would that be acceptable?

imo the abstraction of vm_flags handling is worth being standalone and is
easier to be picked up before a more complex locking scheme change. But
either way, it's up to you.

Thanks,
Davidlohr