[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20141009105037.GM4750@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2014 12:50:37 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
Cc: kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Andres Lagar-Cavilla <andreslc@...gle.com>,
Gleb Natapov <gleb@...nel.org>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Jianyu Zhan <nasa4836@...il.com>,
Paul Cassella <cassella@...y.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Peter Feiner <pfeiner@...gle.com>,
"\\\"Dr. David Alan Gilbert\\\"" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] mm: gup: add get_user_pages_locked and
get_user_pages_unlocked
On Wed, Oct 01, 2014 at 10:56:35AM +0200, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> +static inline long __get_user_pages_locked(struct task_struct *tsk,
> + struct mm_struct *mm,
> + unsigned long start,
> + unsigned long nr_pages,
> + int write, int force,
> + struct page **pages,
> + struct vm_area_struct **vmas,
> + int *locked,
> + bool notify_drop)
> +{
> + if (notify_drop && lock_dropped && *locked) {
> + /*
> + * We must let the caller know we temporarily dropped the lock
> + * and so the critical section protected by it was lost.
> + */
> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + *locked = 0;
> + }
> + return pages_done;
> +}
> +long get_user_pages_locked(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm,
> + unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
> + int write, int force, struct page **pages,
> + int *locked)
> +{
> + return __get_user_pages_locked(tsk, mm, start, nr_pages, write, force,
> + pages, NULL, locked, true);
> +}
> +long get_user_pages_unlocked(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm,
> + unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
> + int write, int force, struct page **pages)
> +{
> + long ret;
> + int locked = 1;
> + down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + ret = __get_user_pages_locked(tsk, mm, start, nr_pages, write, force,
> + pages, NULL, &locked, false);
> + if (locked)
> + up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> + return ret;
> +}
> long get_user_pages(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm,
> unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages, int write,
> int force, struct page **pages, struct vm_area_struct **vmas)
> {
> + return __get_user_pages_locked(tsk, mm, start, nr_pages, write, force,
> + pages, vmas, NULL, false);
> }
I'm wondering about that notify_drop parameter, what's the added
benefit? If you look at these 3 callers we can do away with it, since in
the second called where we have locked but !notify_drop we seem to do
the exact same thing afterwards anyway.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists