Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] mm: __access_remote_vm with per-VMA lock

[Rik van Riel]

On Thu, 2026-06-25 at 08:32 +0200, David Hildenbrand (Arm) wrote:
> On 6/25/26 03:50, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > 
> > v2:
> >  - simplify the code, which should be ok because these copies are <
> > PAGE_SIZE
> >  - clean up the code
> >  - fix locking wrt tlb_remove_table_sync_one()
> >  - hopefully address all the other comments
> 
> You mean, ignoring my comments about not reiplementing GUP entirely?
> 
> NAK

Do we actually have a path to doing that?

I misread that as more of a wish list thing, not
as something we could realistically do today.

How would I go about making that mmap_lock-less
GUP a reality?

What are the prerequisites?

I'm not opposed to working on that, but I
would like to figure out ahead of time
what an acceptable implementation would
roughly look like.

-- 
All Rights Reversed.