Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-141639-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:46:45 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc: "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>,
	Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Always sanity check anon_vma first for per-vma locks
Message-ID: <ZhhaRXHKk7w_hKgi@x1n>
References: <20240410170621.2011171-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20240411171319.almhz23xulg4f7op@revolver>
 <ZhhSItiyLYBEdAX3@x1n>
 <ZhhV3PKgEX9d7_vA@casper.infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZhhV3PKgEX9d7_vA@casper.infradead.org>

On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 10:27:56PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 11, 2024 at 05:12:02PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > The question is whether that's intended to make it as complicated.  For
> > example, why don't we check anon_vma for anonymous too later when prepare
> > anon_vma, however we do it late for file memory.  AFAICT there's nothing
> > special with file memory in this case.
> 
> Yes, it's absolutely intended.  If anything, anon memory is the special
> case that checks up-front.
> 
> Congratulations on adding additional instructions to the common case.
> I don't understand why you persist with your nonsense.  Please stop.

How many instructions it takes for a late RETRY for WRITEs to private file
mappings, fallback to mmap_sem?

Did you even finish reading the patch at all?

-- 
Peter Xu