Hi SeongJae,
I'm resending this because my new mail client mistakenly set the mail
format to HTML. Sorry for the noise.
On 1/15/2025 3:19 PM, SeongJae Park wrote:
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
Right. I didn't carefully read his comment. Thanks for the info.
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
[...]
