On Tue 07-12-21 15:08:19, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 2:47 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 7, 2021 at 2:07 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 01:50:30PM -0800, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > > - Added a comment for vm_operations_struct::close, documenting restriction for
> > > > taking mmap_lock in the callback, per Michal Hocko and Matthew Wilcox
> > >
> > > This should be a separate patch because it stands alone, but ...
> >
> > I thought about it and since it was relevant to the change in
> > remove_vma locking, I thought it would fit here. However, if you
> > insist on splitting it, I'll post it as a separate patch. Please let
> > me know.
> >
> > >
> > > > struct vm_operations_struct {
> > > > void (*open)(struct vm_area_struct * area);
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * Called with mmap_lock lock held for write from __split_vma and
> > > > + * remove_vma, therefore should never take that lock.
> > > > + */
> > >
> > > Your whitespace indentation is weird. And it'd be nice to make this a
> > > kernel-doc comment (I know none of the others are, but that should be
> > > fixed too). And naming the functions that call it is wrong too.
> > >
> > > /**
> > > * @close: Called when the VMA is being removed from the MM.
> > > * Context: Caller holds mmap_lock.
>
> BTW, is the caller always required to hold mmap_lock for write or it
> *might* hold it?
I would go with might
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
