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:   Fri, 9 Jun 2023 20:36:53 +0100
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.com,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, jack@suse.cz, ldufour@linux.ibm.com,
        laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com, michel@lespinasse.org,
        liam.howlett@oracle.com, jglisse@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        minchan@google.com, dave@stgolabs.net, punit.agrawal@bytedance.com,
        lstoakes@gmail.com, hdanton@sina.com, apopple@nvidia.com,
        peterx@redhat.com, ying.huang@intel.com, david@redhat.com,
        yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org,
        pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] mm: implement folio wait under VMA lock
Message-ID: <ZIN/VSepGu9HAi42@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20230609005158.2421285-1-surenb@google.com>
 <20230609005158.2421285-6-surenb@google.com>
 <ZIM/O54Q0waFq/tx@casper.infradead.org>
 <CAJuCfpE4VYz-Z4_aS3d9-8FGtQ-F4f7adYcJqRk3P3Ks7WPgQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJuCfpG9JeHBKF0fzqR7xpDufpm7HVwgfbQVDeKYW24TWkpckw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAJuCfpG9JeHBKF0fzqR7xpDufpm7HVwgfbQVDeKYW24TWkpckw@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 09, 2023 at 11:55:29AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Oh, after rereading I think you are suggesting to replace
> folio_lock_or_retry()/__folio_lock_or_retry() with
> folio_lock_fault()/__folio_lock_fault(), not to add them. Is that
> right?

Right.  It only has two callers.  And I'd do that before adding the
FAULT_VMA_LOCK handling to it.