On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 04:54:08PM -0800, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> Actually, I think you can remove the "need_wake" variable since it is
> unconditionally set to "true".
Oh, yes, thank you. An earlier revision had a different control flow
> Also, the comment in__mmu_interval_notifier_insert() says
> "mni->mr_invalidate_seq" and I think that should be
> "mni->invalidate_seq".
Got it.
I squashed this in:
diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
index b3a064b3b31807..30abbfdc25be55 100644
--- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
+++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
@@ -129,7 +129,6 @@ static void mn_itree_inv_end(struct mmu_notifier_mm *mmn_mm)
{
struct mmu_interval_notifier *mni;
struct hlist_node *next;
- bool need_wake = false;
spin_lock(&mmn_mm->lock);
if (--mmn_mm->active_invalidate_ranges ||
@@ -140,7 +139,6 @@ static void mn_itree_inv_end(struct mmu_notifier_mm *mmn_mm)
/* Make invalidate_seq even */
mmn_mm->invalidate_seq++;
- need_wake = true;
/*
* The inv_end incorporates a deferred mechanism like rtnl_unlock().
@@ -160,8 +158,7 @@ static void mn_itree_inv_end(struct mmu_notifier_mm *mmn_mm)
}
spin_unlock(&mmn_mm->lock);
- if (need_wake)
- wake_up_all(&mmn_mm->wq);
+ wake_up_all(&mmn_mm->wq);
}
/**
@@ -884,7 +881,7 @@ static int __mmu_interval_notifier_insert(
* possibility for live lock, instead defer the add to
* mn_itree_inv_end() so this algorithm is deterministic.
*
- * In all cases the value for the mni->mr_invalidate_seq should be
+ * In all cases the value for the mni->invalidate_seq should be
* odd, see mmu_interval_read_begin()
*/
spin_lock(&mmn_mm->lock);
Jason
