On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 12:02:16AM -0700, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> +static pgprot_t dev_protection_enable_get(struct dev_pagemap *pgmap,
> pgprot_t prot)
> +{
> + if (pgmap->flags & PGMAP_PROT_ENABLED && dev_page_pkey != PKEY_INVALID)
> {
> + pgprotval_t val = pgprot_val(prot);
> +
> + mutex_lock(&dev_prot_enable_lock);
> + dev_protection_enable++;
> + /* Only enable the static branch 1 time */
> + if (dev_protection_enable == 1)
> + static_branch_enable(&dev_protection_static_key);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev_prot_enable_lock);
> +
> + prot = __pgprot(val | _PAGE_PKEY(dev_page_pkey));
> + }
> + return prot;
> +}
> +
> +static void dev_protection_enable_put(struct dev_pagemap *pgmap)
> +{
> + if (pgmap->flags & PGMAP_PROT_ENABLED && dev_page_pkey != PKEY_INVALID)
> {
> + mutex_lock(&dev_prot_enable_lock);
> + dev_protection_enable--;
> + if (dev_protection_enable == 0)
> + static_branch_disable(&dev_protection_static_key);
> + mutex_unlock(&dev_prot_enable_lock);
> + }
> +}
That's an anti-pattern vs static_keys, I'm thinking you actually want
static_key_slow_{inc,dec}() instead of {enable,disable}().
