Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 22 Apr 2020 18:59:17 -0700
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Liam Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 10/10] mmap locking API: rename mmap_sem to mmap_lock
Message-ID: <20200423015917.GA13910@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20200422001422.232330-1-walken@google.com>
 <20200422001422.232330-11-walken@google.com>
 <20200422015829.GR5820@bombadil.infradead.org>
 <CANN689EnGsJXA8n6JvTryQfkCtARPvtZbkH+9Dd2a4X+fvqU9g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANN689EnGsJXA8n6JvTryQfkCtARPvtZbkH+9Dd2a4X+fvqU9g@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 22, 2020 at 03:54:32PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 6:58 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 05:14:22PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > > Rename the mmap_sem field to mmap_lock. Any new uses of this lock
> >
> > Shouldn't some of these be folded into the previous patch?
> 
> So, I didn't do it because previous patch only handled rwsem_is_locked
> call sites. I leaned towards adding as few new API functions as
> possible until we figure out exactly what is required.
> 
> That said, I agree it seems reasonable to split mmap_assert_locked()
> into mmap_assert_read_locked() and mmap_assert_write_locked(), and
> convert the lockdep asserts to use these instead.

Just add mmap_assert_write_locked() -- some of these places can be called
with the rwsem held for either read or write; it doesn't matter which.
Others need it held for write.  There aren't any places (that I'm aware
of) that need to assert that it's held for read, and not held for write.

> I'm not sure we need to do it right away though; we are at least not
> losing any test coverage with the existing version of the patchset...

It seems like a better way to remove users of the term 'mmap_sem' than
just converting them to use the new 'mmap_lock'.