Re: [PATCH resend RFC 7/9] s390/mm: no need for pte_alloc_map_lock() if we know the pmd is present
From: David Hildenbrand <hidden>
Date: 2021-09-14 17:23:44
Also in:
linux-mm, linux-s390, lkml
On 14.09.21 18:54, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Thu, 9 Sep 2021 18:22:46 +0200 David Hildenbrand [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
pte_map_lock() is sufficient.Can you explain the difference and why it is enough?
I didn't repeat the $subject: "No need for pte_alloc_map_lock() if we know the pmd is present; pte_map_lock() is sufficient, because there isn't anything to allocate."
quoted
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <redacted> --- arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c | 15 +++------------ 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c b/arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c index 5fb409ff7842..4e77b8ebdcc5 100644 --- a/arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c +++ b/arch/s390/mm/pgtable.c@@ -814,10 +814,7 @@ int set_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, } spin_unlock(ptl); - ptep = pte_alloc_map_lock(mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); - if (unlikely(!ptep)) - return -EFAULT; - + ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); new = old = pgste_get_lock(ptep); pgste_val(new) &= ~(PGSTE_GR_BIT | PGSTE_GC_BIT | PGSTE_ACC_BITS | PGSTE_FP_BIT);@@ -912,10 +909,7 @@ int reset_guest_reference_bit(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr) } spin_unlock(ptl); - ptep = pte_alloc_map_lock(mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); - if (unlikely(!ptep)) - return -EFAULT; - + ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); new = old = pgste_get_lock(ptep); /* Reset guest reference bit only */ pgste_val(new) &= ~PGSTE_GR_BIT;@@ -977,10 +971,7 @@ int get_guest_storage_key(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, } spin_unlock(ptl); - ptep = pte_alloc_map_lock(mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); - if (unlikely(!ptep)) - return -EFAULT; - + ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmdp, addr, &ptl); pgste = pgste_get_lock(ptep); *key = (pgste_val(pgste) & (PGSTE_ACC_BITS | PGSTE_FP_BIT)) >> 56; paddr = pte_val(*ptep) & PAGE_MASK;
-- Thanks, David / dhildenb