On Wed, Oct 23, 2024 at 12:02 PM Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 16, 2024 at 07:01:59PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 12:56 AM Shakeel Butt <shakeel.butt@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Oct 10, 2024 at 01:56:42PM GMT, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > > > > To increase mm->mm_lock_seq robustness, switch it from int to long, so > > > > that it's a 64-bit counter on 64-bit systems and we can stop worrying > > > > about it wrapping around in just ~4 billion iterations. Same goes for > > > > VMA's matching vm_lock_seq, which is derived from mm_lock_seq. > > > > vm_lock_seq does not need to be long but for consistency I guess that > > makes sense. While at it, can you please change these seq counters to > > be unsigned? > > Yeah, that. Kees is waging war on signed types that 'overflow'. These > sequence counter thingies are designed to wrap and should very much be > unsigned. Ah, ok, I already forgot I need to update this. Will do.
