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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230109205336.3665937-1-surenb@google.com> <20230109205336.3665937-18-surenb@google.com>
 <Y8a734ufLZjPHgtT@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAJuCfpGoYaF2-z7FCiN4X8gEGD6nAwnQC+=n3tUHuMWZa7zx8Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y8e6lm76fIoT0603@dhcp22.suse.cz> <CAJuCfpHtV5xEo97X62uR=LXjK6wQMJXhhV2OxXexTfyudGOptw@mail.gmail.com>
 <Y8hls4MH353ZnlQu@dhcp22.suse.cz>
In-Reply-To: <Y8hls4MH353ZnlQu@dhcp22.suse.cz>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 18 Jan 2023 13:48:13 -0800
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpF3j5Sx+D5p5QPCHP4jcWZUiYm=FfUNYhc6QyHZQvDgpw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 17/41] mm/mmap: move VMA locking before
 anon_vma_lock_write call
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, michel@lespinasse.org,
        jglisse@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, hannes@cmpxchg.org,
        mgorman@techsingularity.net, dave@stgolabs.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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:33 PM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed 18-01-23 10:09:29, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 18, 2023 at 1:23 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue 17-01-23 18:01:01, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2023 at 7:16 AM Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon 09-01-23 12:53:12, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > > > Move VMA flag modification (which now implies VMA locking) before
> > > > > > anon_vma_lock_write to match the locking order of page fault handler.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does this changelog assumes per vma locking in the #PF?
> > > >
> > > > Hmm, you are right. Page fault handlers do not use per-vma locks yet
> > > > but the changelog already talks about that. Maybe I should change it
> > > > to simply:
> > > > ```
> > > > Move VMA flag modification (which now implies VMA locking) before
> > > > vma_adjust_trans_huge() to ensure the modifications are done after VMA
> > > > has been locked.
> > >
> > > Because ....
> >
> > because vma_adjust_trans_huge() modifies the VMA and such
> > modifications should be done under VMA write-lock protection.
>
> So it will become:
> Move VMA flag modification (which now implies VMA locking) before
> vma_adjust_trans_huge() to ensure the modifications are done after VMA
> has been locked. Because vma_adjust_trans_huge() modifies the VMA and such
> modifications should be done under VMA write-lock protection.
>
> which is effectivelly saying
> vma_adjust_trans_huge() modifies the VMA and such modifications should
> be done under VMA write-lock protection so move VMA flag modifications
> before so all of them are covered by the same write protection.
>
> right?

Yes, and the wording in the latter version is simpler to understand
IMO, so I would like to adopt it. Do you agree?

> --
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs