Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] mm/vma: clean up __vma_enter/exit_locked()

Lorenzo Stoakes
2026-01-23T16:28:42Z

On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 04:17:54PM +0000, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 23, 2026 at 10:16:22AM +0100, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > On 1/22/26 14:01, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > These functions are very confusing indeed. 'Entering' a lock could be
> > > interpreted as acquiring it, but this is not what these functions are
> > > interacting with.
> > >
> > > Equally they don't indicate at all what kind of lock we are 'entering' or
> > > 'exiting'. Finally they are misleading as we invoke these functions when we
> > > already hold a write lock to detach a VMA.
> > >
> > > These functions are explicitly simply 'entering' and 'exiting' a state in
> > > which we hold the EXCLUSIVE lock in order that we can either mark the VMA
> > > as being write-locked, or mark the VMA detached.
> >
> > If we hold a write lock (i.e. in vma_mark_detached()), that normally means
> > it's also exclusive?
> > And if we talk about the state between __vma_enter_exclusive_locked and
> > __vma_exit_exclusive_locked() as "holding an EXCLUSIVE lock", it's not
> > exactly the same lock as what we call "VMA write lock" right, so what lock
> > is it?
>
> Well it's not exclusive because spurious reader refcount increments are
> possible (unless already detached of course...)
>
> We are _excluding_ readers, including spurious ones realyl.
>
> >
> > Maybe it would help if we stopped calling this internal thing a "lock"?
> > Except we use it for lockdep's lock_acquire_exclusive(). Sigh, sorry I don't
> > have any great suggestion.
> >
> > Maybe call those functions __vma_exclude_readers_start() and
> > __vma_exclude_readers_end() instead, or something?
>
> Yeah that's probably better actually, will rename accordingly.

Actually went with __vma_start_exclude_readers() and
__vma_end_exclude_readers() as felt they read better.

Cheers, Lorenzo