Messages in this thread | | | From | "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 13/26] ppc: Convert mmu context allocation to new IDA API | Date | Fri, 22 Jun 2018 11:17:19 +0530 |
| |
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018 14:28:22 -0700 > Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote: > >> ida_alloc_range is the perfect fit for this use case. Eliminates >> a custom spinlock, a call to ida_pre_get and a local check for the >> allocated ID exceeding a maximum. >> >> Signed-off-by: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> >> --- >> arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c | 44 +++----------------------- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c b/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c >> index f3d4b4a0e561..5a0cf2cc8ba0 100644 >> --- a/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c >> +++ b/arch/powerpc/mm/mmu_context_book3s64.c >> @@ -26,48 +26,16 @@ >> #include <asm/mmu_context.h> >> #include <asm/pgalloc.h> >> >> -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(mmu_context_lock); >> static DEFINE_IDA(mmu_context_ida); >> >> static int alloc_context_id(int min_id, int max_id) >> { >> - int index, err; >> - >> -again: >> - if (!ida_pre_get(&mmu_context_ida, GFP_KERNEL)) >> - return -ENOMEM; >> - >> - spin_lock(&mmu_context_lock); >> - err = ida_get_new_above(&mmu_context_ida, min_id, &index); >> - spin_unlock(&mmu_context_lock); >> - >> - if (err == -EAGAIN) >> - goto again; >> - else if (err) >> - return err; >> - >> - if (index > max_id) { >> - spin_lock(&mmu_context_lock); >> - ida_remove(&mmu_context_ida, index); >> - spin_unlock(&mmu_context_lock); >> - return -ENOMEM; >> - } >> - >> - return index; >> + return ida_alloc_range(&mmu_context_ida, min_id, max_id, GFP_KERNEL); >> } >> >> void hash__reserve_context_id(int id) >> { >> - int rc, result = 0; >> - >> - do { >> - if (!ida_pre_get(&mmu_context_ida, GFP_KERNEL)) >> - break; >> - >> - spin_lock(&mmu_context_lock); >> - rc = ida_get_new_above(&mmu_context_ida, id, &result); >> - spin_unlock(&mmu_context_lock); >> - } while (rc == -EAGAIN); >> + int result = ida_alloc_range(&mmu_context_ida, id, id, GFP_KERNEL); >> >> WARN(result != id, "mmu: Failed to reserve context id %d (rc %d)\n", id, result); >> } >> @@ -172,9 +140,7 @@ int init_new_context(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm) >> >> void __destroy_context(int context_id) >> { >> - spin_lock(&mmu_context_lock); >> - ida_remove(&mmu_context_ida, context_id); >> - spin_unlock(&mmu_context_lock); >> + ida_free(&mmu_context_ida, context_id); >> } >> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(__destroy_context); >> >> @@ -182,13 +148,11 @@ static void destroy_contexts(mm_context_t *ctx) >> { >> int index, context_id; >> >> - spin_lock(&mmu_context_lock); >> for (index = 0; index < ARRAY_SIZE(ctx->extended_id); index++) { >> context_id = ctx->extended_id[index]; >> if (context_id) >> - ida_remove(&mmu_context_ida, context_id); >> + ida_free(&mmu_context_ida, context_id); >> } >> - spin_unlock(&mmu_context_lock); >> } >> >> static void pte_frag_destroy(void *pte_frag) > > This hunk should be okay because the mmu_context_lock does not protect > the extended_id array, right Aneesh?
Yes. This is called at process exit, so we should not find parallel calls. On the allocation side, we are protected by mmap_sem. We do allocate extended_id when doing mmap.
-aneesh
| |