[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20091016153056.6a1f4fe1.nishimura@mxp.nes.nec.co.jp>
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:30:56 +0900
From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
To: Hugh Dickins <hugh.dickins@...cali.co.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nitin Gupta <ngupta@...are.org>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
hongshin@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
Subject: [PATCH] mm: call pte_unmap() against a proper pte (Re: [PATCH 7/9]
swap_info: swap count continuations)
Hi.
> @@ -645,6 +648,7 @@ static int copy_pte_range(struct mm_stru
> spinlock_t *src_ptl, *dst_ptl;
> int progress = 0;
> int rss[2];
> + swp_entry_t entry = (swp_entry_t){0};
>
> again:
> rss[1] = rss[0] = 0;
> @@ -671,7 +675,10 @@ again:
> progress++;
> continue;
> }
> - copy_one_pte(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_pte, src_pte, vma, addr, rss);
> + entry.val = copy_one_pte(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_pte, src_pte,
> + vma, addr, rss);
> + if (entry.val)
> + break;
> progress += 8;
> } while (dst_pte++, src_pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
>
It isn't the fault of only this patch, but I think breaking the loop without incrementing
dst_pte(and src_pte) would be bad behavior because we do unmap_pte(dst_pte - 1) later.
(current copy_pte_range() already does it though... and this is only problematic
when we break the first loop, IIUC.)
> @@ -681,6 +688,12 @@ again:
> add_mm_rss(dst_mm, rss[0], rss[1]);
> pte_unmap_unlock(dst_pte - 1, dst_ptl);
> cond_resched();
> +
> + if (entry.val) {
> + if (add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_KERNEL) < 0)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> + progress = 0;
> + }
> if (addr != end)
> goto again;
> return 0;
I've searched other places where we break a similar loop and do pte_unmap(pte - 1).
Current copy_pte_range() and apply_to_pte_range() has the same problem.
How about a patch like this ?
===
From: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
There are some places where we do like:
pte = pte_map();
do {
(do break in some conditions)
} while (pte++, ...);
pte_unmap(pte - 1);
But if the loop breaks at the first loop, pte_unmap() unmaps invalid pte.
This patch is a fix for this problem.
Signed-off-by: Daisuke Nishimura <nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp>
---
mm/memory.c | 11 +++++++----
1 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 72a2494..492de38 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -641,6 +641,7 @@ static int copy_pte_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
{
+ pte_t *orig_src_pte, *orig_dst_pte;
pte_t *src_pte, *dst_pte;
spinlock_t *src_ptl, *dst_ptl;
int progress = 0;
@@ -654,6 +655,8 @@ again:
src_pte = pte_offset_map_nested(src_pmd, addr);
src_ptl = pte_lockptr(src_mm, src_pmd);
spin_lock_nested(src_ptl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
+ orig_src_pte = src_pte;
+ orig_dst_pte = dst_pte;
arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
do {
@@ -677,9 +680,9 @@ again:
arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
spin_unlock(src_ptl);
- pte_unmap_nested(src_pte - 1);
+ pte_unmap_nested(orig_src_pte);
add_mm_rss(dst_mm, rss[0], rss[1]);
- pte_unmap_unlock(dst_pte - 1, dst_ptl);
+ pte_unmap_unlock(orig_dst_pte, dst_ptl);
cond_resched();
if (addr != end)
goto again;
@@ -1822,10 +1825,10 @@ static int apply_to_pte_range(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd,
token = pmd_pgtable(*pmd);
do {
- err = fn(pte, token, addr, data);
+ err = fn(pte++, token, addr, data);
if (err)
break;
- } while (pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
+ } while (addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
--
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