[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200326175644.GN20941@ziepe.ca>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2020 14:56:44 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Liam Howlett <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/8] mmap locking API: initial implementation as rwsem
wrappers
On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 12:02:29AM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> +static inline bool mmap_is_locked(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + return rwsem_is_locked(&mm->mmap_sem) != 0;
> +}
I've been wondering if the various VM_BUG(rwsem_is_locked()) would be
better as lockdep expressions? Certainly when lockdep is enabled it
should be preferred, IMHO.
So, I think if inlines are to be introduced this should be something
similar to netdev's ASSERT_RTNL which seems to have worked well.
Maybe ASSERT_MMAP_SEM_READ/WRITE/HELD() and do the VM_BUG or
lockdep_is_held as appropriate?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists