From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner+w=401wt.eu-S1757776AbYBAKcf@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1757776AbYBAKcf (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:32:35 -0500
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754027AbYBAKcZ
	(ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel-outgoing>);
	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:32:25 -0500
Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.171.30]:45635 "EHLO relay.sgi.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1756905AbYBAKcX (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 1 Feb 2008 05:32:23 -0500
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2008 04:32:21 -0600
From: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>
To: Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>
Cc: Robin Holt <holt@sgi.com>, Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@qumranet.com>,
       Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>, Izik Eidus <izike@qumranet.com>,
       kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
       Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>, steiner@sgi.com,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
       daniel.blueman@quadrics.com
Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] mmu_notifier: Callbacks to invalidate address
	ranges
Message-ID: <20080201103221.GH26420@sgi.com>
References: <20080131045750.855008281@sgi.com> <20080131045812.785269387@sgi.com> <20080201042408.GG26420@sgi.com> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801312042500.20675@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0801312042500.20675@schroedinger.engr.sgi.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15+20070412 (2007-04-11)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 08:43:58PM -0800, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2008, Robin Holt wrote:
> 
> > > Index: linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
> > ...
> > > @@ -1668,6 +1678,7 @@ gotten:
> > >  		page_cache_release(old_page);
> > >  unlock:
> > >  	pte_unmap_unlock(page_table, ptl);
> > > +	mmu_notifier(invalidate_range_end, mm, 0);
> > 
> > I think we can get an _end call without the _begin call before it.
> 
> If that would be true then also the pte would have been left locked.
> 
> We always hit unlock. Maybe I just do not see it?

Maybe I haven't looked closely enough, but let's start with some common
assumptions.  Looking at do_wp_page from 2.6.24 (I believe that is what
my work area is based upon).  On line 1559, the function begins being
declared.

On lines 1614 and 1630, we do "goto unlock" where the _end callout is
soon made.  The _begin callout does not come until after those branches
have been taken (occurs on line 1648).

Thanks,
Robin