Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/gntdev: fix up blockable calls to mn_invl_range_start

[Boris Ostrovsky <boris.ostrovsky@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 08/23/2018 09:51 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 23-08-18 22:44:07, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> On 2018/08/23 21:07, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
>>> index 57390c7666e5..e7d8bb1bee2a 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
>>> @@ -519,21 +519,20 @@ static int mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier 
>>> *mn,
>>>     struct gntdev_grant_map *map;
>>>     int ret = 0;
>>>  
>>> -   /* TODO do we really need a mutex here? */
>>>     if (blockable)
>>>             mutex_lock(&priv->lock);
>>>     else if (!mutex_trylock(&priv->lock))
>>>             return -EAGAIN;
>>>  
>>>     list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->maps, next) {
>>> -           if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
>>> +           if (!blockable && in_range(map, start, end)) {
>> This still looks strange. Prior to 93065ac753e4, in_range() test was
>> inside unmap_if_in_range(). But this patch removes in_range() test
>> if blockable == true. That is, unmap_if_in_range() will unconditionally
>> unmap if blockable == true, which seems to be an unexpected change.
> You are right. I completely forgot I've removed in_range there. Does
> this look any better?
>
> diff --git a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> index e7d8bb1bee2a..30f81004ea63 100644
> --- a/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/xen/gntdev.c
> @@ -525,14 +525,20 @@ static int mn_invl_range_start(struct mmu_notifier *mn,
>               return -EAGAIN;
>  
>       list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->maps, next) {
> -             if (!blockable && in_range(map, start, end)) {
> +             if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
> +                     if (blockable)
> +                             continue;
> +
>                       ret = -EAGAIN;
>                       goto out_unlock;
>               }
>               unmap_if_in_range(map, start, end);


(I obviously missed that too with my R-b).

This will never get anything done either. How about

    if (in_range()) {
        if (!blockable) {
            ret = -EGAIN;
            goto out_unlock;
        }
        unmap_range(); // new name since unmap_if_in_range() doesn't
perform any checks now
    }



-boris


>       }
>       list_for_each_entry(map, &priv->freeable_maps, next) {
> -             if (!blockable && in_range(map, start, end)) {
> +             if (in_range(map, start, end)) {
> +                     if (blockable)
> +                             continue;
> +                     
>                       ret = -EAGAIN;
>                       goto out_unlock;
>               }


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel