From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751118AbdEaPkZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2017 11:40:25 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:48772 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750916AbdEaPkY (ORCPT ); Wed, 31 May 2017 11:40:24 -0400 Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 08:40:10 -0700 From: Davidlohr Bueso To: Laurent Dufour Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Jan Kara , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Michal Hocko , Peter Zijlstra , Mel Gorman , Andi Kleen , haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC v2 01/10] mm: Deactivate mmap_sem assert Message-ID: <20170531154010.GA28615@linux-80c1.suse> Mail-Followup-To: Laurent Dufour , linux-mm@kvack.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, Jan Kara , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , Michal Hocko , Peter Zijlstra , Mel Gorman , Andi Kleen , haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com, paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1495624801-8063-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1495624801-8063-2-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1495624801-8063-2-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Laurent! On Wed, 24 May 2017, Laurent Dufour wrote: >When mmap_sem will be moved to a range lock, some assertion done in >the code will have to be reviewed to work with the range locking as >well. > >This patch disables these assertions for the moment but it has be >reviewed later once the range locking API will provide the dedicated >services. Lets not do this; we should _at least_ provide the current checks we already have. The following should be a (slower) equivalent once we have the interval_tree_iter_first() optimization sorted out. int range_is_locked(struct range_lock_tree *tree, struct range_lock *lock) { unsigned long flags; struct interval_tree_node *node; spin_lock_irqsave(&tree->lock, flags); node = interval_tree_iter_first(&tree->root, lock->node.start, lock->node.last); spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tree->lock, flags); return node != NULL; } EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(range_is_locked); Thanks, Davidlohr