On Mon 05-12-22 00:14:29, Zhongkun He wrote:
[...]
> +/* Obtain a reference on the specified mpol */
> static inline void mpol_get(struct mempolicy *pol)
> {
> if (pol)
Shouldn't this be mpol_needs_cond_ref?
> - atomic_inc(&pol->refcnt);
> + percpu_ref_get(&pol->refcnt);
> +}
> +
> +static inline bool mpol_tryget(struct mempolicy *pol)
> +{
> + return pol && percpu_ref_tryget(&pol->refcnt);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * This function initiates destruction of mempolicy.
This is not a useful comment. It would be much more helpful to say when
this should be called.
> + */
> +static inline void mpol_kill(struct mempolicy *pol)
> +{
> + if (pol)
> + percpu_ref_kill(&pol->refcnt);
> +}
> +
> +
> extern bool __mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b);
> static inline bool mpol_equal(struct mempolicy *a, struct mempolicy *b)
> {
> @@ -197,11 +210,15 @@ static inline void mpol_put(struct mempolicy *p)
> {
> }
>
> -static inline void mpol_cond_put(struct mempolicy *pol)
> +static inline void mpol_get(struct mempolicy *pol)
> {
> }
>
> -static inline void mpol_get(struct mempolicy *pol)
> +static inline bool mpol_tryget(struct mempolicy *pol)
> +{
> +}
This should return false, right?
[...]
> +/* Obtain a reference on the specified task mempolicy */
Again, this is pretty much clear from the name. It would be more useful
to explain how the pointer can be used - e.g. needs to call mpol_put
or mpol_kill depending on the calling context.
> +static mempolicy *get_task_mpol(struct task_struct *p)
> +{
> + struct mempolicy *pol;
> +
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + pol = rcu_dereference(p->mempolicy);
> +
> + if (!pol || mpol_tryget(pol))
Shouldn't be !mpol_tryget?
> + pol = NULL;
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> +
> + return pol;
> +}
> +
I do not see any rcu_assign_pointer for the newly created policy so this
seems incomplete. Ditto no mpol_kill calls. I am unlikely to get into
follow up patches now. Please split up the work so that it is reviewable
more easily and then I can have a further look.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
