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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <0-v2-dfe9ecdb6c74+2066-gup_fork_jgg@nvidia.com>
 <2-v2-dfe9ecdb6c74+2066-gup_fork_jgg@nvidia.com> <20201030225250.GB6357@xz-x1>
 <20201030235121.GQ2620339@nvidia.com> <20201103001712.GB52235@lx-t490>
 <20201103002532.GL2620339@nvidia.com> <20201103004133.GD52235@lx-t490>
 <e03dba4e-fd1d-a32c-c99c-fc3fa51419c4@nvidia.com> <20201103065225.GA63301@lx-t490>
In-Reply-To: <20201103065225.GA63301@lx-t490>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 09:40:22 -0800
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgB8nyOQufpn0o6a5BpJCJPnXvH+kRxApujhsgG+7qAwQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm: prevent gup_fast from racing with COW during fork
To:     "Ahmed S. Darwish" <a.darwish@linutronix.de>
Cc:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Sebastian Siewior <bigeasy@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 10:52 PM Ahmed S. Darwish
<a.darwish@linutronix.de> 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 to do is to get rid of the
*_seqcount_t_*() functions entirely.

They add nothing but confusion, and they are entirely misnamed. That's
not the pattern we use for "internal use only" functions, and they are
*very* confusing.

They have other issues too: like raw_write_seqcount_end() not being
usable on its own when preemptibility isn't an issue like here. You
basically _have_ to use raw_write_seqcount_t_end(), because otherwise
it tries to re-enable preemption that was never there.

                   Linus