On 23.11.21 18:24, Shakeel Butt wrote: > On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:20 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 23.11.21 18:17, Shakeel Butt wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 8:57 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>> [...] >>>>>> >>>>>> I do wonder which these locking contexts are exactly, and if we could >>>>>> also do the same thing on ordinary munmap -- because I assume it can be >>>>>> similarly problematic for some applications. >>>>> >>>>> This is a good question regarding munmap. One main difference is >>>>> munmap takes mmap_lock in write mode and usually performance critical >>>>> applications avoid such operations. >>>> >>>> Maybe we can extend it too most page zapping, if that makes things simpler. >>>> >>> >>> Do you mean doing sync THP split for most of page zapping functions >>> (but only if that makes things simpler)? >>> >> >> Yes -- if there are no downsides. >> > > I will try. At the moment the assumption of "Not null zap_details > implies leave swap entries" is giving me a headache. Not only you, did you stumble over https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20211115134951.85286-1-peterx@xxxxxxxxxx already? -- Thanks, David / dhildenb
