On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 02:51:38PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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? They don't need to be implementable for this patchset to be evaluated on its own terms. This patchset improves scalability for anon pages without making file/swap/uffd pages worse (or if it does, I haven't seen the benchmarks to prove it). That said, I'm confident that I have a good handle on how to make file-backed page faults work under RCU.
