[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <07c7ead4-334d-9b25-f588-25e9b46bbea0@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 22:44:07 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.sakura.ne.jp>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com>,
Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xen/gntdev: fix up blockable calls to mn_invl_range_start
On 2018/08/23 21:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> index 57390c7666e5..e7d8bb1bee2a 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> @@ -519,21 +519,20 @@ static int mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
> struct gntdev_grant_map *map;
> int ret = 0;
>
> - /* TODO do we really need a mutex here? */
> if (blockable)
> mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
> else if (!mutex_trylock(&priv->lock))
> return -EAGAIN;
>
> list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->maps, next) {
> - if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
> + if (!blockable && in_range(map, start, end)) {
This still looks strange. Prior to 93065ac753e4, in_range() test was
inside unmap_if_in_range(). But this patch removes in_range() test
if blockable == true. That is, unmap_if_in_range() will unconditionally
unmap if blockable == true, which seems to be an unexpected change.
> ret = -EAGAIN;
> goto out_unlock;
> }
> unmap_if_in_range(map, start, end);
> }
Powered by blists - more mailing lists