[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803251446180.80485@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@...radead.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, kirill@...temov.name,
ak@...ux.intel.com, mhocko@...nel.org, dave@...olabs.net,
jack@...e.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
benh@...nel.crashing.org, mpe@...erman.id.au, paulus@...ba.org,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, hpa@...or.com,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@...il.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
kemi.wang@...el.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
npiggin@...il.com, bsingharora@...il.com,
Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/24] mm: Introduce pte_spinlock for
FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE
On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> When handling page fault without holding the mmap_sem the fetch of the
> pte lock pointer and the locking will have to be done while ensuring
> that the VMA is not touched in our back.
>
> So move the fetch and locking operations in a dedicated function.
>
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
> mm/memory.c | 15 +++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 8ac241b9f370..21b1212a0892 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2288,6 +2288,13 @@ int apply_to_page_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(apply_to_page_range);
>
> +static bool pte_spinlock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
inline?
> +{
> + vmf->ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
> + spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
> + return true;
> +}
> +
> static bool pte_map_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> {
> vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
Shouldn't pte_unmap_same() take struct vm_fault * and use the new
pte_spinlock()?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists