[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070307103018.GC5555@wotan.suse.de>
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2007 11:30:18 +0100
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [rfc][patch 7/6] mm: merge page_mkwrite
Now that I'm making some progress on merging the basic stuff, I'd
like to get opinions about merging page_mkwrite functionality into
->fault().
I still don't see any callers in the tree, but I see no reason why
this won't work (or why it isn't better).
--
Like everything else in life, page_mkwrite()ing is just a primitive,
degenerate form of fault()ing.
Having FAULT_FLAG_WRITE in the fault operation allows us to just get
rid of the page_mkwrite call in do_fault, because filesystems can check
for that flag bit, and do the page_mkwrite thing before returning the
page (this will improve efficiency for everyone).
Then, we introduce another fault flag to signal that the fault is
an event notification for a page, rather than a request for a pgoff.
Signed-off-by: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...e.de>
Index: linux-2.6/include/linux/mm.h
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/include/linux/mm.h
+++ linux-2.6/include/linux/mm.h
@@ -176,6 +176,7 @@ extern unsigned int kobjsize(const void
* return with the page locked.
*/
#define VM_CAN_NONLINEAR 0x10000000 /* Has ->fault & does nonlinear pages */
+#define VM_NOTIFY_MKWRITE 0x20000000 /* Has ->fault & wants page writable notification */
#ifndef VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS /* arch can override this */
#define VM_STACK_DEFAULT_FLAGS VM_DATA_DEFAULT_FLAGS
@@ -201,6 +202,7 @@ extern pgprot_t protection_map[16];
#define FAULT_FLAG_WRITE 0x01
#define FAULT_FLAG_NONLINEAR 0x02
+#define FAULT_FLAG_NOTIFY 0x04 /* fault_data.page contains page */
/*
* fault_data is filled in the the pagefault handler and passed to the
@@ -213,7 +215,10 @@ extern pgprot_t protection_map[16];
* nonlinear mapping support.
*/
struct fault_data {
- unsigned long address;
+ union {
+ unsigned long address;
+ struct page *page;
+ };
pgoff_t pgoff;
unsigned int flags;
@@ -230,9 +235,6 @@ struct vm_operations_struct {
void (*close)(struct vm_area_struct * area);
struct page * (*fault)(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct fault_data * fdata);
struct page * (*nopage)(struct vm_area_struct * area, unsigned long address, int *type);
- /* notification that a previously read-only page is about to become
- * writable, if an error is returned it will cause a SIGBUS */
- int (*page_mkwrite)(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct page *page);
#ifdef CONFIG_NUMA
int (*set_policy)(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct mempolicy *new);
struct mempolicy *(*get_policy)(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
@@ -831,7 +833,7 @@ extern struct shrinker *set_shrinker(int
extern void remove_shrinker(struct shrinker *shrinker);
/*
- * Some shared mappigns will want the pages marked read-only
+ * Some shared mappings will want the pages marked read-only
* to track write events. If so, we'll downgrade vm_page_prot
* to the private version (using protection_map[] without the
* VM_SHARED bit).
@@ -845,7 +847,7 @@ static inline int vma_wants_writenotify(
return 0;
/* The backer wishes to know when pages are first written to? */
- if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->page_mkwrite)
+ if (vma->vm_flags & VM_NOTIFY_MKWRITE)
return 1;
/* The open routine did something to the protections already? */
Index: linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/mm/memory.c
+++ linux-2.6/mm/memory.c
@@ -1566,7 +1566,8 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct *
* read-only shared pages can get COWed by
* get_user_pages(.write=1, .force=1).
*/
- if (vma->vm_ops && vma->vm_ops->page_mkwrite) {
+ if (unlikely(vma->vm_flags & VM_NOTIFY_MKWRITE)) {
+ struct fault_data fdata;
/*
* Notify the address space that the page is about to
* become writable so that it can prohibit this or wait
@@ -1578,8 +1579,14 @@ static int do_wp_page(struct mm_struct *
page_cache_get(old_page);
pte_unmap_unlock(page_table, ptl);
- if (vma->vm_ops->page_mkwrite(vma, old_page) < 0)
- goto unwritable_page;
+ fdata.flags = FAULT_FLAG_NOTIFY|FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
+ fdata.page = old_page;
+ fdata.type = -1;
+ old_page = vma->vm_ops->fault(vma, &fdata);
+ WARN_ON(fdata.type == -1);
+ ret = fdata.type;
+ if (!old_page)
+ return ret;
/*
* Since we dropped the lock we need to revalidate
@@ -1677,10 +1684,6 @@ oom:
if (old_page)
page_cache_release(old_page);
return VM_FAULT_OOM;
-
-unwritable_page:
- page_cache_release(old_page);
- return VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
}
/*
@@ -2254,18 +2257,6 @@ static int __do_fault(struct mm_struct *
goto out;
}
copy_user_highpage(page, faulted_page, address, vma);
- } else {
- /*
- * If the page will be shareable, see if the backing
- * address space wants to know that the page is about
- * to become writable
- */
- if (vma->vm_ops->page_mkwrite &&
- vma->vm_ops->page_mkwrite(vma, page) < 0) {
- fdata.type = VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
- anon = 1; /* no anon but release faulted_page */
- goto out;
- }
}
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists