On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 2:20 AM, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 20, 2014 at 06:05:47AM +0800, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: >> On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 12:26:01PM +0300, Dan Carpenter wrote: >> > The code isn't very beautiful and there are lots of details wrong like >> > the error codes. >> >> Really, what is wrong with the existing error code usages? >> > > I guess I was mostly looking at binder_ioctl(), the rest of the code > seems better. > > I feel like we went directly from "This code is never going in so there > is no need to look at it." to "This code is going in in one week so > there is no time to look at it." > > How often do people rely on proc_no_lock=1 to make this work? People > are saying on the internet that you don't need acurate information so > you should disable locking as a speed up. > http://www.programdevelop.com/1821706/. It seems like a bad idea to > provide provide the "run fast and crash" option. That is not what this switch is for. It is only there to debug the driver if it gets stuck with the lock held. I would not object to adding a config option to remove this param by default. > > Why is binder_set_nice needed? Some comments would help here. The driver has some support for priority inheritance. > > 434 static void binder_set_nice(long nice) > 435 { > 436 long min_nice; > 437 > 438 if (can_nice(current, nice)) { > 439 set_user_nice(current, nice); > 440 return; > 441 } > 442 min_nice = rlimit_to_nice(current->signal->rlim[RLIMIT_NICE].rlim_cur); > 443 binder_debug(BINDER_DEBUG_PRIORITY_CAP, > 444 "%d: nice value %ld not allowed use %ld instead\n", > 445 current->pid, nice, min_nice); > 446 set_user_nice(current, min_nice); > 447 if (min_nice <= MAX_NICE) > 448 return; > > It's harmless but wierd to check if min_nice is valid after we already > called set_user_nice(). I don't remember why I did this, but I agree it is weird. > > 449 binder_user_error("%d RLIMIT_NICE not set\n", current->pid); > 450 } > > Random comment: > > 709 has_page_addr = > 710 (void *)(((uintptr_t)buffer->data + buffer_size) & PAGE_MASK); > > The casting on "buffer->data" ugly and inconsistent. There should be > a function: Other code in the kernel seems to do this the same way (although most cast to unsigned long instead of uintptr_t). This code rounds down to the start of of the page, and needs to cast to an integer type for this. Adding a global kernel helper for this would be better than a binder specific one. The existing PAGE_ALIGN function, which rounds up, still needs casts to use with pointer types though. > void *buffer_data(struct binder_buffer *buffer) > { > return buffer.data; > } > > That way this becomes: > has_page_addr = (buffer_data(buffer) + buffer_size) & PAGE_MASK); I don't think this will compile. > > The "has_page_addr" variable name is misleading, because we're not > storing true/false. We're storing the last page address. It is the address of a page we already have mapped, not the last address of the new allocation. > > 711 if (n == NULL) { > 712 if (size + sizeof(struct binder_buffer) + 4 >= buffer_size) > 713 buffer_size = size; /* no room for other buffers */ > 714 else > 715 buffer_size = size + sizeof(struct binder_buffer); > 716 } > 717 end_page_addr = > 718 (void *)PAGE_ALIGN((uintptr_t)buffer->data + buffer_size); > 719 if (end_page_addr > has_page_addr) > 720 end_page_addr = has_page_addr; > 721 if (binder_update_page_range(proc, 1, > 722 (void *)PAGE_ALIGN((uintptr_t)buffer->data), end_page_addr, NULL)) > 723 return NULL; > > The alignment here is confusing because we don't align buffer->data > below. binder_update_page_range allocates and maps pages. buffer->data will point to a range within the allocated pages. > > 724 > 725 rb_erase(best_fit, &proc->free_buffers); > 726 buffer->free = 0; > 727 binder_insert_allocated_buffer(proc, buffer); > 728 if (buffer_size != size) { > 729 struct binder_buffer *new_buffer = (void *)buffer->data + size; > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > I don't really understand when buffer->data has to be page aligned and > when not. This code has very few comments. > buffer->data never needs to be page aligned. The code above rounds to page boundaries to allocate new pages as needed. > 730 > 731 list_add(&new_buffer->entry, &buffer->entry); > 732 new_buffer->free = 1; > 733 binder_insert_free_buffer(proc, new_buffer); > 734 } > > Does the stop_on_user_error option work? There should be some > documentation for this stuff. > Yes. > regards, > dan carpenter > -- Arve Hjønnevåg _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
