[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877ej5f7oq.fsf@yhuang-dev.intel.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Sep 2018 08:50:29 +0800
From: "Huang\, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>
To: Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
Shaohua Li <shli@...nel.org>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>,
Zi Yan <zi.yan@...rutgers.edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V5 RESEND 03/21] swap: Support PMD swap mapping in swap_duplicate()
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com> writes:
> On Fri, Sep 28, 2018 at 04:19:03PM +0800, Huang, Ying wrote:
>> Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com> writes:
>> > One way is to change
>> > copy_one_pte's return to int so we can just pass the error code back to
>> > copy_pte_range so it knows whether to try adding the continuation.
>>
>> There may be even more problems. After add_swap_count_continuation(),
>> copy_one_pte() will be retried, and the CPU may hang with dead loop.
>
> That's true, it would do that.
>
>> But before the changes in this patchset, the behavior is,
>> __swap_duplicate() return an error that isn't -ENOMEM, such as -EEXIST.
>> Then copy_one_pte() would thought the operation has been done
>> successfully, and go to call set_pte_at(). This will cause the system
>> state become inconsistent, and the system may panic or hang somewhere
>> later.
>>
>> So per my understanding, if we thought page table corruption isn't a
>> real problem (that is, __swap_duplicate() will never return e.g. -EEXIST
>> if copied by copy_one_pte() indirectly), both the original and the new
>> code should be OK.
>>
>> If we thought it is a real problem, we need to fix the original code and
>> keep it fixed in the new code. Do you agree?
>
> Yes, if it was a real problem, which seems less and less the case the more I
> stare at this.
>
>> There's several ways to fix the problem. But the page table shouldn't
>> be corrupted in practice, unless there's some programming error. So I
>> suggest to make it as simple as possible via adding,
>>
>> VM_BUG_ON(error != -ENOMEM);
>>
>> in swap_duplicate().
>>
>> Do you agree?
>
> Yes, I'm ok with that, adding in -ENOTDIR along with it.
Sure. I will do this.
> The error handling in __swap_duplicate (before this series) still leaves
> something to be desired IMHO. Why all the different returns when callers
> ignore them or only specifically check for -ENOMEM or -EEXIST? Could maybe
> stand a cleanup, but outside this series.
Yes. Maybe. I guess you will work on this?
Best Regards,
Huang, Ying
Powered by blists - more mailing lists