On Tue, Nov 23, 2021 at 9:26 AM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? > Oh thanks for the pointer. I missed that. I will take a look. Thanks again.
