Re: [PATCH 03/18] mm, hugetlb: unify region structure handling

["Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>]

Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com> writes:

> Currently, to track a reserved and allocated region, we use two different
> ways for MAP_SHARED and MAP_PRIVATE. For MAP_SHARED, we use
> address_mapping's private_list and, for MAP_PRIVATE, we use a resv_map.
> Now, we are preparing to change a coarse grained lock which protect
> a region structure to fine grained lock, and this difference hinder it.
> So, before changing it, unify region structure handling.
>
> Signed-off-by: Joonsoo Kim <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>
>
> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> index a3f868a..a1ae3ada 100644
> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
> @@ -366,7 +366,12 @@ static void truncate_hugepages(struct inode *inode, loff_t lstart)
>
>  static void hugetlbfs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
>  {
> +	struct resv_map *resv_map;
> +
>  	truncate_hugepages(inode, 0);
> +	resv_map = (struct resv_map *)inode->i_mapping->private_data;
> +	if (resv_map)

can resv_map == NULL ?


> +		kref_put(&resv_map->refs, resv_map_release);

Also the kref_put is confusing. For shared mapping we don't have ref
count incremented right ? So may be you can directly call
resv_map_release or add a comment around explaining this more ?


>  	clear_inode(inode);
>  }
>
> @@ -468,6 +473,11 @@ static struct inode *hugetlbfs_get_inode(struct super_block *sb,
>  					umode_t mode, dev_t dev)
>  {
>  	struct inode *inode;
> +	struct resv_map *resv_map;
> +
> +	resv_map = resv_map_alloc();
> +	if (!resv_map)
> +		return NULL;

-aneesh

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>