On 1/15/2025 3:19 PM, SeongJae Park
wrote:
Right. I didn't carefully read his comment. Thanks for the info.Hi Honggyu, On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:35:48 +0900 Honggyu Kim <honggyu.kim@xxxxxx> wrote:Hi SeongJae, I have a simple comment on this. On 1/11/2025 9:46 AM, SeongJae Park wrote:process_madvise() calls do_madvise() for each address range. Then, each do_madvise() invocation holds and releases same mmap_lock. Optimize the redundant lock operations by doing the locking in process_madvise(), and inform do_madvise() that the lock is already held and therefore can be skipped.[...]--- include/linux/mm.h | 3 ++- io_uring/advise.c | 2 +- mm/damon/vaddr.c | 2 +- mm/madvise.c | 54 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------- 4 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h index 612b513ebfbd..e3ca5967ebd4 100644 --- a/include/linux/mm.h +++ b/include/linux/mm.h @@ -3459,7 +3459,8 @@ int do_vmi_align_munmap(struct vma_iterator *vmi, struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long end, struct list_head *uf, bool unlock); extern int do_munmap(struct mm_struct *, unsigned long, size_t, struct list_head *uf); -extern int do_madvise(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start, size_t len_in, int behavior); +extern int do_madvise(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long start, size_t len_in, + int behavior, bool lock_held); #ifdef CONFIG_MMU extern int __mm_populate(unsigned long addr, unsigned long len, diff --git a/io_uring/advise.c b/io_uring/advise.c index cb7b881665e5..010b55d5a26e 100644 --- a/io_uring/advise.c +++ b/io_uring/advise.c @@ -56,7 +56,7 @@ int io_madvise(struct io_kiocb *req, unsigned int issue_flags) WARN_ON_ONCE(issue_flags & IO_URING_F_NONBLOCK); - ret = do_madvise(current->mm, ma->addr, ma->len, ma->advice); + ret = do_madvise(current->mm, ma->addr, ma->len, ma->advice, false);I feel like this doesn't look good in terms of readability. Can we introduce an enum for this?I agree that's not good to read. Liam alos pointed out a similar issue
but suggested splitting functions with clear names[1]. I think that also fairly improves readability, and I slightly prefer that way, since it wouldn't introduce a new type for only a single use case. Would that also work for your concern, or do you have a different opinion? [1] https://lore.kernel.org/20250115041750.58164-1-sj@xxxxxxxxxx
I don't have any other concern.
Thanks, Honggyu
Thanks, SJ [...]
