[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220204224133.GA1559@lespinasse.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:41:33 -0800
From: Michel Lespinasse <michel@...pinasse.org>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Michel Lespinasse <michel@...pinasse.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, kernel-team@...com,
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Liam Howlett <liam.howlett@...cle.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...riel.com>,
Paul McKenney <paulmck@...nel.org>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...gle.com>,
Joel Fernandes <joelaf@...gle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 12/35] mm: separate mmap locked assertion from find_vma
On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 02:44:55PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 28, 2022 at 05:09:43AM -0800, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > This adds a new __find_vma() function, which implements find_vma minus
> > the mmap_assert_locked() assertion.
> >
> > find_vma() is then implemented as an inline wrapper around __find_vma().
>
> You might like to take inspiration from the maple tree patches
> where we assert that either the RCU lock is held or the mmap_lock
> is held.
I've been considering it, but I'm not sure we want to go that way:
it's not sufficient for the caller to have an RCU read lock,
they also need to do the proper mmap_seq_read_check() after
dereferencing the vma... So I think having this different set of
expectations for the two cases warrants using a different name
to keep things more explicit.
--
Michel "walken" Lespinasse
Powered by blists - more mailing lists