Hello everyone.
I was chasing some issue in my own code when I came across the
following in include/linux/mm_types.h:
======================
/* Pointer magic because the dynamic array size confuses some compilers. */
static inline void mm_init_cpumask(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
unsigned long cpu_bitmap = (unsigned long)mm;
cpu_bitmap += offsetof(struct mm_struct, cpu_bitmap);
cpumask_clear((struct cpumask *)cpu_bitmap);
}
/* Future-safe accessor for struct mm_struct's cpu_vm_mask. */
static inline cpumask_t *mm_cpumask(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
return (struct cpumask *)&mm->cpu_bitmap;
}
======================
Bodies of both functions came from commit
c1a2f7f0c06454387c2cd7b93ff1491c715a8c69 "mm: Allocate the mm_cpumask
(mm->cpu_bitmap[]) dynamically based on nr_cpu_ids"
This raises the following issues:
If pointer magic is required in mm_init_cpumask(), then what makes
mm_cpumask() safe (and vice versa)?
If mm_cpumask() is not safe, then at the very least the following has
to be fixed:
$ grep -rIn 'cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(' *
arch/powerpc/include/asm/tlb.h:69: cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm));
arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c:857: cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm));
arch/ia64/include/asm/mmu_context.h:92: cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm));
arch/csky/mm/asid.c:126: cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm));
arch/arm/mm/context.c:233: cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm));
Otherwise, mm_init_cpumask() can be simplified down to
cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm)).
What do you think?
Please CC me on reply.
Thank you.
On Wed, 2019-08-21 at 09:13 -0400, Siarhei Liakh wrote:
> If mm_cpumask() is not safe, then at the very least the following has
> to be fixed:
> $ grep -rIn 'cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(' *
> arch/powerpc/include/asm/tlb.h:69: cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm));
> arch/sparc/mm/init_64.c:857: cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm));
> arch/ia64/include/asm/mmu_context.h:92: cpumask_clear(mm_cpuma
> sk(mm));
> arch/csky/mm/asid.c:126: cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm));
> arch/arm/mm/context.c:233: cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm));
>
> Otherwise, mm_init_cpumask() can be simplified down to
> cpumask_clear(mm_cpumask(mm)).
> What do you think?
That looks like a nice cleanup.
I do not see why it would not work, but I suppose
that should be tested :)
--
All Rights Reversed.