[RFC PATCH RESEND 00/28] per-VMA locks proposal

[Vlastimil Babka]

On 9/28/22 04:28, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 2:35 AM Vlastimil Babka <vbabka at suse.cz> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/2/22 01:26, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> Two complaints so far:
>> >>  - I don't like the vma_mark_locked() name. To me it says that the caller
>> >>    already took or is taking the lock and this function is just marking that
>> >>    we're holding the lock, but it's really taking a different type of lock. But
>> >>    this function can block, it really is taking a lock, so it should say that.
>> >>
>> >>    This is AFAIK a new concept, not sure I'm going to have anything good either,
>> >>    but perhaps vma_lock_multiple()?
>> >
>> > I'm open to name suggestions but vma_lock_multiple() is a bit
>> > confusing to me. Will wait for more suggestions.
>>
>> Well, it does act like a vma_write_lock(), no? So why not that name. The
>> checking function for it is even called vma_assert_write_locked().
>>
>> We just don't provide a single vma_write_unlock(), but a
>> vma_mark_unlocked_all(), that could be instead named e.g.
>> vma_write_unlock_all().
>> But it's called on a mm, so maybe e.g. mm_vma_write_unlock_all()?
> 
> Thank you for your suggestions, Vlastimil! vma_write_lock() sounds
> good to me. For vma_mark_unlocked_all() replacement, I would prefer
> vma_write_unlock_all() which keeps the vma_write_XXX naming pattern to

OK.

> indicate that these are operating on the same locks. If the fact that
> it accepts mm_struct as a parameter is an issue then maybe
> vma_write_unlock_mm() ?

Sounds good!

>>
>>