Date:   Fri, 27 Jan 2023 14:51:38 -0800
From:   Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc:     michel@lespinasse.org, jglisse@google.com, mhocko@suse.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, paulmck@kernel.org,
        mingo@redhat.com, will@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,
        rppt@kernel.org, jannh@google.com, shakeelb@google.com,
        tatashin@google.com, edumazet@google.com, gthelen@google.com,
        gurua@google.com, arjunroy@google.com, soheil@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 v2 00/33] Per-VMA locks
Message-Id: <20230127145138.8cc44bf00ebf289dffec0975@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230127194110.533103-1-surenb@google.com>
References: <20230127194110.533103-1-surenb@google.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 11:40:37 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:

> Per-vma locks idea that was discussed during SPF [1] discussion at LSF/MM
> last year [2], which concluded with suggestion that “a reader/writer
> semaphore could be put into the VMA itself; that would have the effect of
> using the VMA as a sort of range lock. There would still be contention at
> the VMA level, but it would be an improvement.” This patchset implements
> this suggested approach.

I think I'll await reviewer/tester input for a while.

> The patchset implements per-VMA locking only for anonymous pages which
> are not in swap and avoids userfaultfs as their implementation is more
> complex. Additional support for file-back page faults, swapped and user
> pages can be added incrementally.

This is a significant risk.  How can we be confident that these as yet
unimplemented parts are implementable and that the result will be good?