[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201117153750.GD15987@linux>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 2020 16:37:50 +0100
From: Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Rashmica Gupta <rashmica.g@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Wei Yang <richard.weiyang@...ux.alibaba.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/8] powerpc/mm: protect linear mapping modifications
by a mutex
On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 03:53:18PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> @@ -144,7 +147,9 @@ void __ref arch_remove_linear_mapping(u64 start, u64 size)
> start = (unsigned long)__va(start);
> flush_dcache_range_chunked(start, start + size, FLUSH_CHUNK_SIZE);
>
> + mutex_lock(&linear_mapping_mutex);
> ret = remove_section_mapping(start, start + size);
> + mutex_unlock(&linear_mapping_mutex);
> WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
My expertise in this area is low, so bear with me.
Why we do not need to protect flush_dcache_range_chunked and
vm_unmap_aliases?
--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE L3
Powered by blists - more mailing lists