Re: [PATCH v9 00/17] reimplement per-vma lock as a refcount

Vlastimil Babka
2025-01-14T09:09:44Z

On 1/14/25 05:09, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:53:11 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jan 13, 2025 at 5:49 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > Yes, we're at -rc7 and this series is rather in panic mode and it seems
>> > unnecessarily risky so I'm inclined to set it aside for this cycle.
>> >
>> > If the series is considered super desirable and if people are confident
>> > that we can address any remaining glitches during two months of -rc
>> > then sure, we could push the envelope a bit. But I don't believe this
>> > is the case so I'm thinking let's give ourselves another cycle to get
>> > this all sorted out?
>>
>> I didn't think this series was in panic mode with one real issue that
>> is not hard to address (memory ordering in
>> __refcount_inc_not_zero_limited()) but I'm obviously biased and might
>> be missing the big picture. In any case, if it makes people nervous I
>> have no objections to your plan.
>
> Well, I'm soliciting opinions here. What do others think?
>
> And do you see much urgency with these changes?

I don't see the urgency and at this point giving it more time seems wise.
Seems like v10 won't be exactly trivial as we'll change from refcount_t to
atomic_t? And I'd like to see PeterZ review the lockdep parts too.