Re: [PATCH] mm/hmm: Simplify hmm_vma_walk_pud slightly

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 12/03/2020 15:11, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 02:40:08PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
On 12/03/2020 14:27, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 10:28:13AM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
By refactoring to deal with the !pud_huge(pud) || !pud_devmap(pud)
condition early it's possible to remove the 'ret' variable and remove a
level of indentation from half the function making the code easier to
read.

No functional change.

Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx>
Thanks to Jason's changes there were only two code paths left using
the out_unlock label so it seemed like a good opportunity to
refactor.

Yes, I made something very similar, what do you think of this:

https://github.com/jgunthorpe/linux/commit/93f0ed42ab3f9ceb27b58fb7c7c3ecaf60f16b36

Even better! Sorry I didn't realise you'd already done this. I just saw that
the function was needlessly complicated after your fix, so I thought I'd do
a drive-by cleanup since part of the mess was my fault! :)

No worries, I've got a lot of patches for hmm_range_fault right now,
just trying to organize them, test them and post them. Haven't posted
that one yet.

Actually, while you are looking at this, do you think we should be
adding at least READ_ONCE in the pagewalk.c walk_* functions? The
multiple references of pmd, pud, etc without locking seems sketchy to
me.

I agree it seems worrying. I'm not entirely sure whether the holding of mmap_sem is sufficient, this isn't something that I changed so I've just been hoping that it's sufficient since it seems to have been working (whether that's by chance because the compiler didn't generate multiple reads I've no idea). For walking the kernel's page tables the lack of READ_ONCE is also not great, but at least for PTDUMP we don't care too much about accuracy and it should be crash proof because there's no RCU grace period. And again the code I was replacing didn't have any special protection.

I can't see any harm in updating the code to include READ_ONCE and I'm happy to review a patch.

Thanks,

Steve
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel



[Index of Archives]     [Linux DRI Users]     [Linux Intel Graphics]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux