On Thu 23-08-18 22:44:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> On 2018/08/23 21:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> > index 57390c7666e5..e7d8bb1bee2a 100644
> > --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> > +++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> > @@ -519,21 +519,20 @@ static int mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> > struct gntdev_grant_map *map;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > - /* TODO do we really need a mutex here? */
> > if (blockable)
> > mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
> > else if (!mutex_trylock(&priv->lock))
> > return -EAGAIN;
> >
> > list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->maps, next) {
> > - if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
> > + if (!blockable && in_range(map, start, end)) {
>
> This still looks strange. Prior to 93065ac753e4, in_range() test was
> inside unmap_if_in_range(). But this patch removes in_range() test
> if blockable == true. That is, unmap_if_in_range() will unconditionally
> unmap if blockable == true, which seems to be an unexpected change.
You are right. I completely forgot I've removed in_range there. Does
this look any better?
diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
index e7d8bb1bee2a..30f81004ea63 100644
--- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
+++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
@@ -525,14 +525,20 @@ static int mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
return -EAGAIN;
list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->maps, next) {
- if (!blockable && in_range(map, start, end)) {
+ if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
+ if (blockable)
+ continue;
+
ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out_unlock;
}
unmap_if_in_range(map, start, end);
}
list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->freeable_maps, next) {
- if (!blockable && in_range(map, start, end)) {
+ if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
+ if (blockable)
+ continue;
+
ret = -EAGAIN;
goto out_unlock;
}
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
