On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 09:57:09AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 05:39:26PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 3/28/19 2:21 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 01:43:13PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > >> On 3/28/19 12:11 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > >>> On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 04:07:20AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > >>>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:40:02AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > >>>>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > [...]
> > >>>>> @@ -67,14 +78,9 @@ struct hmm {
> > >>>>> */
> > >>>>> static struct hmm *hmm_register(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > >>>>> {
> > >>>>> - struct hmm *hmm = READ_ONCE(mm->hmm);
> > >>>>> + struct hmm *hmm = mm_get_hmm(mm);
> > >>>>
> > >>>> FWIW: having hmm_register == "hmm get" is a bit confusing...
> > >>>
> > >>> The thing is that you want only one hmm struct per process and thus
> > >>> if there is already one and it is not being destroy then you want to
> > >>> reuse it.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also this is all internal to HMM code and so it should not confuse
> > >>> anyone.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Well, it has repeatedly come up, and I'd claim that it is quite
> > >> counter-intuitive. So if there is an easy way to make this internal
> > >> HMM code clearer or better named, I would really love that to happen.
> > >>
> > >> And we shouldn't ever dismiss feedback based on "this is just internal
> > >> xxx subsystem code, no need for it to be as clear as other parts of the
> > >> kernel", right?
> > >
> > > Yes but i have not seen any better alternative that present code. If
> > > there is please submit patch.
> > >
> >
> > Ira, do you have any patch you're working on, or a more detailed suggestion there?
> > If not, then I might (later, as it's not urgent) propose a small cleanup patch
> > I had in mind for the hmm_register code. But I don't want to duplicate effort
> > if you're already thinking about it.
>
> No I don't have anything.
>
> I was just really digging into these this time around and I was about to
> comment on the lack of "get's" for some "puts" when I realized that
> "hmm_register" _was_ the get...
>
> :-(
>
The get is mm_get_hmm() were you get a reference on HMM from a mm struct.
John in previous posting complained about me naming that function hmm_get()
and thus in this version i renamed it to mm_get_hmm() as we are getting
a reference on hmm from a mm struct.
The hmm_put() is just releasing the reference on the hmm struct.
Here i feel i am getting contradicting requirement from different people.
I don't think there is a way to please everyone here.
Cheers,
Jérôme
