Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] mm,memory_hotplug: Drop unneeded locking | From | David Hildenbrand <> | Date | Tue, 1 Jun 2021 10:02:54 +0200 |
| |
On 01.06.21 09:47, Oscar Salvador wrote: > On Tue, Jun 01, 2021 at 10:47:31AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> Should also just drop zone_span_write[lock|unlock]() helpers as there >> are no users left ? > > Yes, definitely. > Andrew, can you squash this on top? Thanks: > > diff --git a/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h b/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h > index a7fd2c3ccb77..27d8ba1d32cb 100644 > --- a/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h > +++ b/include/linux/memory_hotplug.h > @@ -67,10 +67,6 @@ struct range mhp_get_pluggable_range(bool need_mapping); > > /* > * Zone resizing functions > - * > - * Note: any attempt to resize a zone should has pgdat_resize_lock() > - * zone_span_writelock() both held. This ensure the size of a zone > - * can't be changed while pgdat_resize_lock() held. > */ > static inline unsigned zone_span_seqbegin(struct zone *zone) > { > @@ -80,14 +76,6 @@ static inline int zone_span_seqretry(struct zone *zone, unsigned iv) > { > return read_seqretry(&zone->span_seqlock, iv); > } > -static inline void zone_span_writelock(struct zone *zone) > -{ > - write_seqlock(&zone->span_seqlock); > -} > -static inline void zone_span_writeunlock(struct zone *zone) > -{ > - write_sequnlock(&zone->span_seqlock); > -}
If there is no writer anymore, why do we have to protect readers?
-- Thanks,
David / dhildenb
| |