[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170430044700.GF27790@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2017 21:47:00 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill@...temov.name,
ak@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
jack@...e.cz, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 03/17] mm: Introduce pte_spinlock
On Thu, Apr 27, 2017 at 05:52:42PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2100,6 +2100,13 @@ static inline void wp_page_reuse(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
> }
>
> +static bool pte_spinlock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> +{
> + vmf->ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
> + spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
> + return true;
> +}
To me 'pte_spinlock' is a noun, but this is really pte_spin_lock() (a verb).
Actually, it's really vmf_lock_pte(). We're locking the pte
referred to by this vmf. And so we should probably have a matching
vmf_unlock_pte(vmf) to preserve the abstraction.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists