lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] mm/mmu_notifier: use structure for invalidate_range_start/end calls
On Wed, Dec 05, 2018 at 12:04:16PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi Jerome!
>
> On Mon 03-12-18 15:18:16, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> >
> > To avoid having to change many call sites everytime we want to add a
> > parameter use a structure to group all parameters for the mmu_notifier
> > invalidate_range_start/end cakks. No functional changes with this
> > patch.
>
> Two suggestions for the patch below:
>
> > @@ -772,7 +775,8 @@ static void dax_entry_mkclean(struct address_space *mapping, pgoff_t index,
> > * call mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start() on our behalf
> > * before taking any lock.
> > */
> > - if (follow_pte_pmd(vma->vm_mm, address, &start, &end, &ptep, &pmdp, &ptl))
> > + if (follow_pte_pmd(vma->vm_mm, address, &range,
> > + &ptep, &pmdp, &ptl))
> > continue;
>
> The change of follow_pte_pmd() arguments looks unexpected. Why should that
> care about mmu notifier range? I see it may be convenient but it doesn't look
> like a good API to me.

Saddly i do not see a way around that one this is because of fs/dax.c
which does the mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end while follow_pte_pmd
do the mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start

follow_pte_pmd does adjust the start and end address so that the dax
function does not have the logic to find those address. So instead of
duplicating that follow_pte_pmd inside the dax code i rather passed
around the range struct to follow_pte_pmd.

>
> > @@ -1139,11 +1140,15 @@ static ssize_t clear_refs_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf,
> > downgrade_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> > break;
> > }
> > - mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(mm, 0, -1);
> > +
> > + range.start = 0;
> > + range.end = -1UL;
> > + range.mm = mm;
> > + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
>
> Also how about providing initializer for struct mmu_notifier_range? Or
> something like DECLARE_MMU_NOTIFIER_RANGE? That will make sure that
> unused arguments for particular notification places have defined values and
> also if you add another mandatory argument (like you do in your third
> patch), you just add another argument to the initializer and that way
> the compiler makes sure you haven't missed any place. Finally the code will
> remain more compact that way (less lines needed to initialize the struct).

That is what i do in v2 :)

Thank you for looking to all this.

Cheers,
Jérôme

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-05 16:55    [W:0.071 / U:2.776 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site