On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 09:17:22 +0530 Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 8:28 AM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 13 Mar 2020 07:41:00 +0530 Souptick Joarder <jrdr.linux@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > walk_page_range() already has a check for lockdep_assert_held().
> > > So additional check for lockdep_assert_held() can be removed from
> > > hmm_range_fault().
> > >
> > > ...
> > >
> > > --- a/mm/hmm.c
> > > +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> > > @@ -681,7 +681,6 @@ long hmm_range_fault(struct hmm_range *range, unsigned int flags)
> > > struct mm_struct *mm = range->notifier->mm;
> > > int ret;
> > >
> > > - lockdep_assert_held(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > >
> > > do {
> > > /* If range is no longer valid force retry. */
> >
> > It isn't very obvious that hmm_range_fault() is and will only be called
> > from walk_page_range() (is it?)
> >
>
> Sorry Andrew, didn't get this part ?
> * hmm_range_fault() is and will only be called
> from walk_page_range() (is it?) *
The patch assumes that hmm_range_fault() will only ever be called via
walk_page_range(). How do we know this is the case? And that it
always will be the case?
