On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 04:17:11AM +0100, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 06:01:30PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 11/3/20 5:32 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> ...
> > > #define __read_seqcount_retry(s, start)
> > > \
> > > - __read_seqcount_t_
On Wed, Nov 04, 2020 at 10:38:57AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
...
>
> Looks reasonable to me.
>
> And can you add a few comments to the magic type macros, so that it's
> a lot more obvious what the end result was.
...
>
> I can see it when I really look, but when looking at the actual use,
> it's
On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:17 PM Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>
> Nonetheless, as you mentioned in the later (dropped) part of your
> message, I think do_ is better than __do_, so the final result will be:
>
> do___read_seqcount_retry()
> do_read_seqcount_retry()
> do_raw_write_seqcount_begin()
>
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 06:01:30PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 11/3/20 5:32 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
...
> > #define __read_seqcount_retry(s, start)
> > \
> > - __read_seqcount_t_retry(__seqcount_ptr(s), start)
> > + __do___read_seqcount_retry(__seqco
On 11/3/20 5:32 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:40:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:52 PM Ahmed S. Darwish
wrote:
...
>
> patch #1:
>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] seqlock: Use __do_ prefix instead of non-standed
_seqcount_t_ marke
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 09:40:22AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:52 PM Ahmed S. Darwish
> wrote:
> >
> > The problem is, I've already documented seqlock.h to death There are
> > more comments than code in there, and there is "seqlock.rst" under
> > Documentation/ to
On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:52 PM Ahmed S. Darwish
wrote:
>
> The problem is, I've already documented seqlock.h to death There are
> more comments than code in there, and there is "seqlock.rst" under
> Documentation/ to further describe the big picture.
Well, honestly, I think the correct thing
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 01:17:12AM +0100, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > > > index c48f8df6e50268..294c2c3c4fe00d 100644
> > > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > > @@ -1171,6 +1171,12 @@ copy_page_range(struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> > > > struct vm_area_struc
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 06:20:45PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 11/2/20 4:41 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:25:32PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 01:17:12AM +0100, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
> > >
> > > > Please stick with the official expor
On 11/2/20 4:41 PM, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:25:32PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 01:17:12AM +0100, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
Please stick with the official exported API: raw_write_seqcount_begin().
How did you know this was 'offical exported
On Mon, Nov 02, 2020 at 08:25:32PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 01:17:12AM +0100, Ahmed S. Darwish wrote:
>
> > Please stick with the official exported API: raw_write_seqcount_begin().
>
> How did you know this was 'offical exported API' ??
>
All the official exported se
On Sat, Oct 31, 2020 at 11:26:05AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
...
> Shall we document this explicitly (if this patch still needs a repost)?
Yes, this patch series needs a v3 :)
> Seems not straightforward since that seems not the usual way to use seqcount,
> not sure whether I'm the only one that f
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:51:21PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 06:52:50PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
...
>
> > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > > index c48f8df6e50268..294c2c3c4fe00d 100644
> > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > @@ -1171,6 +1171,12 @@ copy_page_range(st
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:46:21AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
...
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index c48f8df6e50268..294c2c3c4fe00d 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -1171,6 +1171,12 @@ copy_page_range(struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma, struct
> vm_area_struct *sr
On Fri 30-10-20 14:02:26, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 05:51:05PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > @@ -446,6 +447,12 @@ struct mm_struct {
> > >*/
> > > atomic_t has_pinned;
> > >
> > > + /**
> > > + * @write_protect_seq: Odd when any thread
On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 08:51:21PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Another pure question: I'm just curious how you find all the statically
> > definied mm_structs, and to make sure all of them are covered (just in case
> > un-initialized seqcount could fail strangely).
>
> I searched for all MMA
Hi, Jason,
I think majorly the patch looks good to me, but I have a few pure questions
majorly not directly related to the patch itself, but around the contexts.
Since I _feel_ like there'll be a new version to update the comments below,
maybe I can still ask aloud... Please bare with me. :)
On F
On Fri 30-10-20 11:46:21, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> Since commit 70e806e4e645 ("mm: Do early cow for pinned pages during
> fork() for ptes") pages under a FOLL_PIN will not be write protected
> during COW for fork. This means that pages returned from
> pin_user_pages(FOLL_WRITE) should not become wr
18 matches
Mail list logo
