On Fri 24-08-18 11:12:40, Jerome Glisse wrote:
[...]
> I am fine with Michal patch, i already said so couple month ago first time
> this discussion did pop up, Michal you can add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
So I guess the below is the patch you were talking about?
>From f7ac75277d526dccd011f343818dc6af627af2af Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:32:24 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] mm, mmu_notifier: be explicit about range invalition
non-blocking mode
If invalidate_range_start is called for !blocking mode then all
callbacks have to guarantee they will no block/sleep. The same obviously
applies to invalidate_range_end because this operation pairs with the
former and they are called from the same context. Make sure this is
appropriately documented.
Signed-off-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxx>
---
include/linux/mmu_notifier.h | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
index 133ba78820ee..698e371aafe3 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
@@ -153,7 +153,9 @@ struct mmu_notifier_ops {
*
* If blockable argument is set to false then the callback cannot
* sleep and has to return with -EAGAIN. 0 should be returned
- * otherwise.
+ * otherwise. Please note that if invalidate_range_start approves
+ * a non-blocking behavior then the same applies to
+ * invalidate_range_end.
*
*/
int (*invalidate_range_start)(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
--
2.18.0
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
