[PATCH V4] x86/mm/pat: Do a small optimization and fix in reserve_memtype

[PATCH V4] x86/mm/pat: Do a small optimization and fix in reserve_memtype

[Pan Xinhui]

From: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@intel.com>

It's more reasonable to unlock memtype_lock right after
rbt_memtype_check_insert. All pat_rbtree operations need to be performed
while holding the memtype_lock. But codes like kfree, pr_info, etc have
nothing to do with this lock. So move spin_unlock a little ahead.

If *new* succeed to be stored into the rb-tree, we might hit panic.
Because we access *new* in dprintk "cattr_name(new->type)". Data stored
in the rb-tree might be freed at any possible time. It's obviously wrong
to access such data without lock held.

We use actual_type instead of new->type in dprintk. Two benefits, 1) We
don't touch *new* here now so panic can be avoided. 2) As new->type is
same with *new_type, We needn't to print it again, what's more, this
actual_type's output can help debug. When new_type is NULL, actual_type
is equal to new->type, So no key information is lost.

Do a minor codes style improvement.

Signed-off-by: Pan Xinhui <xinhuix.pan@intel.com>
---
change from v3:
	output actual_type instead of new->type.
	codes style improvement.
	update comments.
change from v2:
	update comments.
change from V1:
	fix an access of *new* without memtype_lock held.
---
 arch/x86/mm/pat.c | 14 ++++----------
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
index 188e3e0..8fa1f07 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
@@ -521,10 +521,7 @@ int reserve_memtype(u64 start, u64 end, enum page_cache_mode req_type,
 
 	is_range_ram = pat_pagerange_is_ram(start, end);
 	if (is_range_ram == 1) {
-
-		err = reserve_ram_pages_type(start, end, req_type, new_type);
-
-		return err;
+		return reserve_ram_pages_type(start, end, req_type, new_type);
 	} else if (is_range_ram < 0) {
 		return -EINVAL;
 	}
@@ -538,22 +535,19 @@ int reserve_memtype(u64 start, u64 end, enum page_cache_mode req_type,
 	new->type	= actual_type;
 
 	spin_lock(&memtype_lock);
-
 	err = rbt_memtype_check_insert(new, new_type);
+	spin_unlock(&memtype_lock);
+
 	if (err) {
 		pr_info("x86/PAT: reserve_memtype failed [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx], track %s, req %s\n",
 			start, end - 1,
 			cattr_name(new->type), cattr_name(req_type));
 		kfree(new);
-		spin_unlock(&memtype_lock);
-
 		return err;
 	}
 
-	spin_unlock(&memtype_lock);
-
 	dprintk("reserve_memtype added [mem %#010Lx-%#010Lx], track %s, req %s, ret %s\n",
-		start, end - 1, cattr_name(new->type), cattr_name(req_type),
+		start, end - 1, cattr_name(actual_type), cattr_name(req_type),
 		new_type ? cattr_name(*new_type) : "-");
 
 	return err;
-- 
1.9.1

RE: [PATCH V4] x86/mm/pat: Do a small optimization and fix in reserve_memtype

[Elliott, Robert (Server Storage)]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8", Size: 992 bytes --]



---
Robert Elliott, HP Server Storage

> -----Original Message-----
> From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pan Xinhui
> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:27 AM
...
> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
> index 188e3e0..8fa1f07 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
> @@ -521,10 +521,7 @@ int reserve_memtype(u64 start, u64 end, enum
> page_cache_mode req_type,
> 
>  	is_range_ram = pat_pagerange_is_ram(start, end);
>  	if (is_range_ram == 1) {
> -
> -		err = reserve_ram_pages_type(start, end, req_type, new_type);
> -
> -		return err;
> +		return reserve_ram_pages_type(start, end, req_type, new_type);
>  	} else if (is_range_ram < 0) {
>  		return -EINVAL;
>  	}

With each branch now just one line, the {} can be removed.



ÿôèº{.nÇ+‰·Ÿ®‰­†+%ŠËÿ±éݶ\x17¥Šwÿº{.nÇ+‰·¥Š{±þG«éÿŠ{ayº\x1dʇڙë,j\a­¢f£¢·hšïêÿ‘êçz_è®\x03(­éšŽŠÝ¢j"ú\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿ¾\a«þG«éÿ¢¸?™¨è­Ú&£ø§~á¶iO•æ¬z·švØ^\x14\x04\x1a¶^[m§ÿÿÃ\fÿ¶ìÿ¢¸?–I¥

Re: [PATCH V4] x86/mm/pat: Do a small optimization and fix in reserve_memtype

[Borislav Petkov]

On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:38:28PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote:
> With each branch now just one line, the {} can be removed.

... and I had suggested it without the {}.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--

Re: [PATCH V4] x86/mm/pat: Do a small optimization and fix in reserve_memtype

[Pan Xinhui]

hi, Elliot
	thanks for your reply.
On 2015年07月22日 22:38, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote:
> 
> 
> ---
> Robert Elliott, HP Server Storage
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-kernel-
>> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of Pan Xinhui
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 8:27 AM
> ...
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
>> index 188e3e0..8fa1f07 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/mm/pat.c
>> @@ -521,10 +521,7 @@ int reserve_memtype(u64 start, u64 end, enum
>> page_cache_mode req_type,
>>
>>       is_range_ram = pat_pagerange_is_ram(start, end);
>>       if (is_range_ram == 1) {
>> -
>> -             err = reserve_ram_pages_type(start, end, req_type, new_type);
>> -
>> -             return err;
>> +             return reserve_ram_pages_type(start, end, req_type, new_type);
>>       } else if (is_range_ram < 0) {
>>               return -EINVAL;
>>       }
> 
> With each branch now just one line, the {} can be removed.
> 
thanks for the nice tips. sorry for my mistakes.

thanks
xinhui
> 
> 

Re: [PATCH V4] x86/mm/pat: Do a small optimization and fix in reserve_memtype

[Pan Xinhui]

hi, Borislav
	very kind of you. :)
On 2015年07月22日 22:45, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 22, 2015 at 02:38:28PM +0000, Elliott, Robert (Server Storage) wrote:
>> With each branch now just one line, the {} can be removed.
> 
> ... and I had suggested it without the {}.
> 
hmm, sorry for my mistakes. 
Now I have to send patch V5 to you, the version number 5 is a little big for a simple patch like this..

thanks
xinhui