On Tue, Dec 06, 2022 at 08:36:20PM +0800, Binbin Wu wrote:
> > +static void pfn_reader_user_destroy(struct pfn_reader_user *user,
> > + struct iopt_pages *pages)
> > +{
> > + if (user->locked != -1) {
> > + if (user->locked)
> > + mmap_read_unlock(pages->source_mm);
> > + if (pages->source_mm != current->mm)
> > + mmput(pages->source_mm);
> > + user->locked = 0;
>
> Set back to -1 is more aligned with the definition of the locked?
Ok
> Although the value doesn't matter due to the end of lifecyle of
> pfn_reader_user.
Yep
> > +/* This is the "modern" and faster accounting method used by io_uring */
> > +static int incr_user_locked_vm(struct iopt_pages *pages, unsigned long npages)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long lock_limit;
> > + unsigned long cur_pages;
> > + unsigned long new_pages;
> > +
> > + lock_limit = task_rlimit(pages->source_task, RLIMIT_MEMLOCK) >>
> > + PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + npages = pages->npinned - pages->last_npinned;
>
> The passed in value of npages is not used?
Ooh, that is a mistake this line should not be present
However in all cases the npages is equal to the calculation so it is
harmless.
Thanks,
Jason
