[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6fd4eb3d-ef66-7a37-4adb-05c22ac51d95@linux.alibaba.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jul 2018 10:24:27 -0700
From: Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: willy@...radead.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
peterz@...radead.org, mingo@...hat.com, acme@...nel.org,
alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
namhyung@...nel.org, tglx@...utronix.de, hpa@...or.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC v3 PATCH 5/5] x86: check VM_DEAD flag in page fault
On 7/2/18 6:37 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Mon 02-07-18 15:33:11, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>
>> On 02/07/2018 14:45, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>> On Mon 02-07-18 14:26:09, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>>>> On 02/07/2018 14:15, Michal Hocko wrote:
> [...]
>>>>> We already do have a model for that. Have a look at MMF_UNSTABLE.
>>>> MMF_UNSTABLE is a mm's flag, here this is a VMA's flag which is checked.
>>> Yeah, and we have the VMA ready for all places where we do check the
>>> flag. check_stable_address_space can be made to get vma rather than mm.
>> Yeah, this would have been more efficient to check that flag at the beginning
>> of the page fault handler rather than the end, but this way it will be easier
>> to handle the speculative page fault too ;)
> The thing is that it doesn't really need to be called earlier. You are
> not risking data corruption on file backed mappings.
OK, I just think it could save a few cycles to check the flag earlier.
If nobody think it is necessary, we definitely could re-use
check_stable_address_space(), just return VM_FAULT_SIGSEGV for VM_DEAD
vma, and check for both shared and non-shared.
Thanks,
Yang
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists