On 9/28/22 04:28, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 2:35 AM Vlastimil Babka 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
On Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 2:35 AM Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>
> On 9/2/22 01:26, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 1:58 PM Kent Overstreet
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:34:48AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >> > Resending to fix the issue with the In-Reply-To
On 9/2/22 01:26, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2022 at 1:58 PM Kent Overstreet
> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:34:48AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
>> > Resending to fix the issue with the In-Reply-To tag in the original
>> > submission at [4].
>> >
>> > This is a proof
On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 11:32:48AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 5:32 AM 'Michal Hocko' via kernel-team
> wrote:
> >
> > Unless I am missing something, this is not based on the Maple tree
> > rewrite, right? Does the change in the data structure makes any
> >
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:34:48AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> This is a proof of concept for per-vma locks idea that was discussed
> during SPF [1] discussion at LSF/MM this year [2], which concluded with
> suggestion that “a reader/writer semaphore could be put into the VMA
> itself; that
On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 10:34:48AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> Resending to fix the issue with the In-Reply-To tag in the original
> submission at [4].
>
> This is a proof of concept for per-vma locks idea that was discussed
> during SPF [1] discussion at LSF/MM this year [2], which
