On Fri, 31 Jan 2025 11:04:51 -0500 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > * SeongJae Park <sj@xxxxxxxxxx> [250116 20:31]: > > 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 splitting do_madvise() internal logics > > including the mmap_lock operations, and calling the small logics > > directly from process_madvise() in a sequence that removes the redundant > > locking. > > > > Changes from RFC v1 (20250111004618.1566-1-sj@xxxxxxxxxx) > > - Split out do_madvise() and use those from vector_madvise(), instead of > > adding a flag to do_madvise() (Liam R. Howlett) > > I was waiting for a non-RFC to re-examine the series. It looks like a > good clean up. Thank you Liam :) > > Do you think you'll send out a non-RFC version soon? I'm planning to send it next week. Thanks, SJ > > > > > SeongJae Park (4): > > mm/madvise: split out mmap locking operations for madvise() > > mm/madvise: split out madvise input validity check > > mm/madvise: split out madvise() behavior execution > > mm/madvise: remove redundant mmap_lock operations from > > process_madvise() > > > > mm/madvise.c | 150 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------- > > 1 file changed, 103 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-) > > > > > > base-commit: b43ba6938d01ad4487028592109d4116a28b7afa > > -- > > 2.39.5
