Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Wed, 11 Dec 2019 18:12:52 +0100
From:   Luc Van Oostenryck <luc.vanoostenryck@gmail.com>
To:     Steven Price <steven.price@arm.com>
Cc:     kbuild test robot <lkp@intel.com>,
        Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        "Liang, Kan" <kan.liang@linux.intel.com>, x86@kernel.org,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, kbuild-all@lists.01.org,
        Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, James Morse <james.morse@arm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v16 13/25] mm: pagewalk: Don't lock PTEs for
 walk_page_range_novma()
Message-ID: <20191211171252.fdbdqn2nrze637gm@ltop.local>
References: <20191206135316.47703-14-steven.price@arm.com>
 <201912101842.KIXI4yCg%lkp@intel.com>
 <e0fd5594-fb4e-9ead-e582-544f47cb1f8b@arm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <e0fd5594-fb4e-9ead-e582-544f47cb1f8b@arm.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 03:54:06PM +0000, Steven Price wrote:
> On 10/12/2019 11:23, kbuild test robot wrote:
> >>> include/linux/spinlock.h:378:9: sparse: sparse: context imbalance in 'walk_pte_range' - unexpected unlock
> 
> I believe this is a false positive (although the trace here is useless).
> This patch adds a conditional lock/unlock:
> 
> pte = walk->no_vma ? pte_offset_map(pmd, addr) :
> 		     pte_offset_map_lock(walk->mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> ...
> if (!walk->no_vma)
> 	spin_unlock(ptl);
> pte_unmap(pte);
> 
> I'm not sure how to match sparse happy about that. Is the only option to
> have two versions of the walk_pte_range() function? One which takes the
> lock and one which doesn't.

Yes.

-- Luc