On Wed, 22 Aug 2007 12:00:11 -0500
Dean Nelson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 3) WARNING: declaring multiple variables together should be avoided
>
> checkpatch.pl is erroneously commplaining about the following found in five
> different functions in arch/ia64/sn/kernel/xpmem_pfn.c.
>
> int n_pgs = xpmem_num_of_pages(vaddr, size);
What warning does it generate here?
> > - xpmem_fault_handler() appears to have imposed a kernel-wide rule that
> > when taking multiple mmap_sems, one should take the lowest-addressed one
> > first? If so, that probably wants a mention in that locking comment in
> > filemap.c
>
> Sure. After looking at the lock ordering comment block in mm/filemap.c, it
> wasn't clear to me how best to document this. Any suggestions/help would
> be most appreciated.
umm,
* when taking multiple mmap_sems, one should take the lowest-addressed one
* first
;)
> > - xpmem_fault_handler() does atomic_dec(&seg_tg->mm->mm_users). What
> > happens if that was the last reference?
>
> When /dev/xpmem is opened by a user process, xpmem_open() incs mm_users
> and when it is flushed, xpmem_flush() decs it (via mmput()) after having
> ensured that no XPMEM attachments exist of this mm. Thus the dec in
> xpmem_fault_handler() will never take it to 0.
OK. Generally if a reviewer asks a question like this, it indicates that a
code comment is needed. Because it is likely that others will later wonder
the same thing.
> > - Has it all been tested with lockdep enabled? Jugding from all the use
> > of SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED, it has not.
> >
> > Oh, ia64 doesn't implement lockdep. For this code, that is deeply
> > regrettable.
>
> No, it hasn't been tested with lockdep. But I have switched it from using
> SPIN_LOCK_UNLOCKED to spin_lock_init().
>
> > ! This code all predates the nopage->fault conversion and won't work in
> > current kernels.
>
> I've switched from using nopage to using fault. I read that it is intended
> that nopfn also goes away. If this is the case, then the BUG_ON if VM_PFNMAP
> is set would make __do_fault() a rather unfriendly replacement for do_no_pfn().
>
> > - xpmem_attach() does smp_processor_id() in preemptible code. Lucky that
> > ia64 doesn't do preempt?
>
> Actually, the code is fine as is even with preemption configured on. All it's
> doing is ensuring that the thread was previously pinned to the CPU it's
> currently running on. If it is, it can't be moved to another CPU via
> preemption, and if it isn't, the check will fail and we'll return -EINVAL
> and all is well.
OK. Running smp_processor_id() from within preemptible code will generate
a warning, but the code is sneaky enough to prevent that warning if the
calling task happens to be pinned to a single CPU.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
