lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Sep]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Ack to merge through DRM? WAS Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mm: Add write-protect and clean utilities for address space ranges
On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 01:16:55PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 1:09 PM Thomas Hellström (VMware)
> <thomas_os@shipmail.org> wrote:
> >
> > That said, if people are OK with me modifying the assert in
> > pud_trans_huge_lock() and make __walk_page_range non-static, it should
> > probably be possible to make it work, yes.
>
> I don't think you need to modify that assert at all.
>
> That thing only exists when there's a "pud_entry" op in the walker,
> and then you absolutely need to have that mmap_lock.
>
> As far as I can tell, you fundamentally only ever work on a pte level
> in your address space walker already and actually have a WARN_ON() on
> the pud_huge thing, so no pud entry can possibly apply.
>
> So no, the assert in pud_trans_huge_lock() does not seem to be a
> reason not to just use the existing page table walkers.
>
> And once you get rid of the walking, what is left? Just the "iterate
> over the inode mappings" part. Which could just be done in
> mm/pagewalk.c, and then you don't even need to remove the static.
>
> So making it be just another walking in pagewalk.c would seem to be
> the simplest model.
>
> Call it "walk_page_mapping()". And talk extensively about how the
> locking differs a lot from the usual "walk_page_vma()" things.

Walking mappings of a page is what rmap does. This code thas to be
integrated there.

--
Kirill A. Shutemov

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-09-27 14:19    [W:0.084 / U:0.808 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site