[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200401134234.GR20696@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2020 15:42:34 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
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>,
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>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 06/10] mmap locking API: convert nested write lock
sites
On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 03:50:58PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> @@ -26,6 +31,12 @@ static inline void mmap_write_unlock(struct mm_struct *mm)
> up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> }
>
> +/* Pairs with mmap_write_lock_nested() */
> +static inline void mmap_write_unlock_nested(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + up_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
> +}
> +
> static inline void mmap_downgrade_write_lock(struct mm_struct *mm)
> {
> downgrade_write(&mm->mmap_sem);
Why does unlock_nested() make sense ?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists