On Fri, 27 Jan 2023 11:40:37 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Per-vma locks idea that was discussed during SPF [1] discussion at LSF/MM > last year [2], which concluded with suggestion that “a reader/writer > semaphore could be put into the VMA itself; that would have the effect of > using the VMA as a sort of range lock. There would still be contention at > the VMA level, but it would be an improvement.” This patchset implements > this suggested approach. I think I'll await reviewer/tester input for a while. > The patchset implements per-VMA locking only for anonymous pages which > are not in swap and avoids userfaultfs as their implementation is more > complex. Additional support for file-back page faults, swapped and user > pages can be added incrementally. This is a significant risk. How can we be confident that these as yet unimplemented parts are implementable and that the result will be good?
