[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20201126130202.GH2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 14:02:02 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: kan.liang@...ux.intel.com, mingo@...nel.org, acme@...nel.org,
mark.rutland@....com, alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com,
jolsa@...hat.com, eranian@...gle.com, christophe.leroy@...roup.eu,
npiggin@...il.com, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
mpe@...erman.id.au, will@...nel.org, aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com,
sparclinux@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
catalin.marinas@....com, linux-arch@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ak@...ux.intel.com,
dave.hansen@...el.com, kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/6] mm/gup: Provide gup_get_pte() more generic
On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 12:43:00PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2020 at 01:01:15PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_GUP_GET_PTE_LOW_HIGH
> > +/*
> > + * WARNING: only to be used in the get_user_pages_fast() implementation.
> > + * With get_user_pages_fast(), we walk down the pagetables without taking any
> > + * locks. For this we would like to load the pointers atomically, but sometimes
> > + * that is not possible (e.g. without expensive cmpxchg8b on x86_32 PAE). What
> > + * we do have is the guarantee that a PTE will only either go from not present
> > + * to present, or present to not present or both -- it will not switch to a
> > + * completely different present page without a TLB flush in between; something
> > + * that we are blocking by holding interrupts off.
>
> I feel like this comment needs some love. How about:
>
> * For walking the pagetables without holding any locks. Some architectures
> * (eg x86-32 PAE) cannot load the entries atomically without using
> * expensive instructions. We are guaranteed that a PTE will only either go
> * from not present to present, or present to not present -- it will not
> * switch to a completely different present page without a TLB flush
> * inbetween; which we are blocking by holding interrupts off.
>
> And it would be nice to have an assertion that interrupts are disabled
> in the code. Because comments are nice, but nobody reads them.
Quite agreed, I'll stick a separate patch on with the updated comment
and a lockdep_assert_irqs_disabled() in. I'm afraid that latter will make
for header soup though :/
We'll see, let the robots have it.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists