On Mon 26-03-18 23:49:18, Tetsuo Handa wrote: [...] > Also, even if we succeeded to avoid mmap_sem contention at that location, > won't we after all get mmap_sem contention messages a bit later, for > access_remote_vm() holds mmap_sem which would lead to traces like above > if mmap_sem is already contended?
Yes, but at least we get rid of the mmap_sem for something that can use a more fine grained locking. Maybe we can get a finer grained range locking for mmap_sem one day and not having the full range locked section will be a plus. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs
