[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210524055939.GB48704@shbuild999.sh.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 24 May 2021 13:59:39 +0800
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...radead.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ben Widawsky <ben.widawsky@...el.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, ying.huang@...el.com
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch v2 2/4] mm/mempolicy: unify the preprocessing for
mbind and set_mempolicy
On Sun, May 23, 2021 at 10:16:11PM -0700, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Thu, 20 May 2021, Feng Tang wrote:
>
> > Currently the kernel_mbind() and kernel_set_mempolicy() do almost
> > the same operation for parameter sanity check and preprocessing.
> >
> > Add a macro to unify the code to reduce the redundancy, and make
> > it easier for changing the pre-processing code in future.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
> > ---
> > mm/mempolicy.c | 46 +++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/mempolicy.c b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > index 1964cca..0f5bf60 100644
> > --- a/mm/mempolicy.c
> > +++ b/mm/mempolicy.c
> > @@ -1460,25 +1460,29 @@ static int copy_nodes_to_user(unsigned long __user *mask, unsigned long maxnode,
> > return copy_to_user(mask, nodes_addr(*nodes), copy) ? -EFAULT : 0;
> > }
> >
> > +#define MPOL_PRE_PROCESS() \
>
> This should be extracted to helper function returning bool, not a macro.
Yes, initially I did try it with an inline function, but as a function
it has quite several input parameters and several output parameters,
which made the code still big and ugly.
But if community think it's the right direction to go, I can change it.
Thanks,
Feng
> > + \
> > + nodemask_t nodes; \
> > + int err; \
> > + unsigned short mode_flags; \
> > + mode_flags = mode & MPOL_MODE_FLAGS; \
> > + mode &= ~MPOL_MODE_FLAGS; \
> > + if (mode >= MPOL_MAX) \
> > + return -EINVAL; \
> > + if ((mode_flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) && \
> > + (mode_flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES)) \
> > + return -EINVAL; \
> > + err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode); \
> > + if (err) \
> > + return err;
> > +
> > static long kernel_mbind(unsigned long start, unsigned long len,
> > unsigned long mode, const unsigned long __user *nmask,
> > unsigned long maxnode, unsigned int flags)
> > {
> > - nodemask_t nodes;
> > - int err;
> > - unsigned short mode_flags;
> > + MPOL_PRE_PROCESS();
> >
> > start = untagged_addr(start);
> > - mode_flags = mode & MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > - mode &= ~MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > - if (mode >= MPOL_MAX)
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - if ((mode_flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) &&
> > - (mode_flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode);
> > - if (err)
> > - return err;
> > return do_mbind(start, len, mode, mode_flags, &nodes, flags);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1493,20 +1497,8 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE6(mbind, unsigned long, start, unsigned long, len,
> > static long kernel_set_mempolicy(int mode, const unsigned long __user *nmask,
> > unsigned long maxnode)
> > {
> > - int err;
> > - nodemask_t nodes;
> > - unsigned short flags;
> > -
> > - flags = mode & MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > - mode &= ~MPOL_MODE_FLAGS;
> > - if ((unsigned int)mode >= MPOL_MAX)
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - if ((flags & MPOL_F_STATIC_NODES) && (flags & MPOL_F_RELATIVE_NODES))
> > - return -EINVAL;
> > - err = get_nodes(&nodes, nmask, maxnode);
> > - if (err)
> > - return err;
> > - return do_set_mempolicy(mode, flags, &nodes);
> > + MPOL_PRE_PROCESS();
> > + return do_set_mempolicy(mode, mode_flags, &nodes);
> > }
> >
> > SYSCALL_DEFINE3(set_mempolicy, int, mode, const unsigned long __user *, nmask,
> > --
> > 2.7.4
> >
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists