Re: [PATCH v3 2/5] binder: Make shrinker rely solely on per-VMA lock

[Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>]

On Sun, Aug 02, 2026 at 02:54:56PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> 
> tl;dr: lock_vma_under_rcu() is already a trylock. No need to do both
> it and mmap_read_trylock().
> 
> Long Version:
> 
> == Background ==
> 
> Historically, binder used an mmap_read_trylock() in its shrinker code.
> This ensures that reclaim is not blocked on an mmap_lock. Commit
> 95bc2d4a9020 ("binder: use per-vma lock in page reclaiming") added
> support for the per-VMA lock, but left mmap_read_trylock() as a
> fallback.
> 
> This was presumably because the per-VMA locking can fail for several
> reasons and most (all?) lock_vma_under_rcu() callers have a fallback
> to mmap_read_trylock().
> 
> == Problem ==
> 
> The fallback is not worth the complexity here. lock_vma_under_rcu() is
> essentially already a non-blocking trylock. The main reason it fails
> is also the reason mmap_read_trylock() fails: something is holding
> mmap_write_lock().
> 
> The only remedy for a collision with mmap_write_lock() is to wait,
> which this code can not do. So the "fallback" after
> lock_vma_under_rcu() failure is not really a fallback: it is really
> likely to just be retrying in vain. That retry in an of itself isn't
> horrible. But it adds complexity.
> 
> == Solution ==
> 
> Now that per-VMA locks are universally available, lock_vma_under_rcu()
> will not persistently fail. Rely on it alone and simplify the code.
> 
> Full disclosure: I originally tried to do this with
> lock_vma_under_rcu_wait(), but it did not fit well with the mmap_lock
> trylock semantics. Claude caught this in a review and suggested the
> approach in this path. It seemed sane to me. So, Suggesed-by: Claude,
> I guess.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> Signed-off-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>

Reviewed-by: Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@google.com>