LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ricardo Neri <ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>,
x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 7/8] x86: mpx: pass atomic parameter to do_munmap()
Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:53:36 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <8d2b26b6-b40a-cef8-9d67-afb8c12ad359@linux.alibaba.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1803202307330.1714@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
On 3/20/18 3:35 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2018, Yang Shi wrote:
>
> Please CC everyone involved on the full patch set next time. I had to dig
> the rest out from my lkml archive to get the context.
Sorry for the inconvenience. Will pay attention to it next time.
>
>> Pass "true" to do_munmap() to not do unlock/relock to mmap_sem when
>> manipulating mpx map.
>> This is API change only.
> This is wrong. You cannot change the function in one patch and then clean
> up the users. That breaks bisectability.
>
> Depending on the number of callers this wants to be a single patch changing
> both the function and the callers or you need to create a new function
> which has the extra argument and switch all users over to it and then
> remove the old function.
>
>> @@ -780,7 +780,7 @@ static int unmap_entire_bt(struct mm_struct *mm,
>> * avoid recursion, do_munmap() will check whether it comes
>> * from one bounds table through VM_MPX flag.
>> */
>> - return do_munmap(mm, bt_addr, mpx_bt_size_bytes(mm), NULL);
>> + return do_munmap(mm, bt_addr, mpx_bt_size_bytes(mm), NULL, true);
> But looking at the full context this is the wrong approach.
>
> First of all the name of that parameter 'atomic' is completely
> misleading. It suggests that this happens in fully atomic context, which is
> not the case.
>
> Secondly, conditional locking is frowned upon in general and rightfully so.
>
> So the right thing to do is to leave do_munmap() alone and add a new
> function do_munmap_huge() or whatever sensible name you come up with. Then
> convert the places which are considered to be safe one by one with a proper
> changelog which explains WHY this is safe.
>
> That way you avoid the chasing game of all existing do_munmap() callers and
> just use the new 'free in chunks' approach where it is appropriate and
> safe. No suprises, no bisectability issues....
>
> While at it please add proper kernel doc documentation to both do_munmap()
> and the new function which explains the intricacies.
Thanks a lot for the suggestion. Absolutely agree. Will fix the problems
in newer version.
Yang
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-03-21 16:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-03-20 21:31 [RFC PATCH 0/8] Drop mmap_sem during unmapping large map Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 1/8] mm: mmap: unmap large mapping by section Yang Shi
2018-03-21 13:08 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 16:31 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 17:29 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-21 21:45 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 22:15 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-21 22:40 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 22:46 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 15:32 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 15:40 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 15:54 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 16:05 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 16:18 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 16:46 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-23 13:03 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 16:51 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 16:49 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-22 17:34 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-22 18:48 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-24 18:24 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-03-21 13:14 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 16:50 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 17:16 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-21 21:23 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-21 22:36 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-22 9:10 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-22 16:06 ` Yang Shi
2018-03-22 16:12 ` Michal Hocko
2018-03-22 16:13 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-03-22 16:28 ` Laurent Dufour
2018-03-22 16:36 ` David Laight
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 2/8] mm: mmap: pass atomic parameter to do_munmap() call sites Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 3/8] mm: mremap: pass atomic parameter to do_munmap() Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 4/8] mm: nommu: add " Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 5/8] ipc: shm: pass " Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 6/8] fs: proc/vmcore: " Yang Shi
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 7/8] x86: mpx: " Yang Shi
2018-03-20 22:35 ` Thomas Gleixner
2018-03-21 16:53 ` Yang Shi [this message]
2018-03-20 21:31 ` [RFC PATCH 8/8] x86: vma: " Yang Shi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=8d2b26b6-b40a-cef8-9d67-afb8c12ad359@linux.alibaba.com \
--to=yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=bp@suse.de \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=ricardo.neri-calderon@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
--subject='Re: [RFC PATCH 7/8] x86: mpx: pass atomic parameter to do_munmap()' \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).