[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <8b102fee-e1bc-28e4-2187-994e39fb6734@linux.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:45:51 +0200
From: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mhocko@...nel.org, peterz@...radead.org,
kirill@...temov.name, ak@...ux.intel.com, dave@...olabs.net,
jack@...e.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com, 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>,
sergey.senozhatsky.work@...il.com,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Ganesh Mahendran <opensource.ganesh@...il.com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@...il.com>,
vinayak menon <vinayakm.list@...il.com>,
Yang Shi <yang.shi@...ux.alibaba.com>,
zhong jiang <zhongjiang@...wei.com>,
Haiyan Song <haiyanx.song@...el.com>,
Balbir Singh <bsingharora@...il.com>, sj38.park@...il.com,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
haren@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, npiggin@...il.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@...ux.intel.com>,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 05/31] mm: prepare for FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE
Le 19/04/2019 à 00:04, Jerome Glisse a écrit :
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 03:44:56PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>>
>> When speculating faults (without holding mmap_sem) we need to validate
>> that the vma against which we loaded pages is still valid when we're
>> ready to install the new PTE.
>>
>> Therefore, replace the pte_offset_map_lock() calls that (re)take the
>> PTL with pte_map_lock() which can fail in case we find the VMA changed
>> since we started the fault.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@...radead.org>
>>
>> [Port to 4.12 kernel]
>> [Remove the comment about the fault_env structure which has been
>> implemented as the vm_fault structure in the kernel]
>> [move pte_map_lock()'s definition upper in the file]
>> [move the define of FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE later in the series]
>> [review error path in do_swap_page(), do_anonymous_page() and
>> wp_page_copy()]
>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@...ux.ibm.com>
>
> Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
>
>> ---
>> mm/memory.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>> 1 file changed, 58 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> index c6ddadd9d2b7..fc3698d13cb5 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> @@ -2073,6 +2073,13 @@ int apply_to_page_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(apply_to_page_range);
>>
>> +static inline bool pte_map_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>
> I am not fan of the name maybe pte_offset_map_lock_if_valid() ? But
> that just a taste thing. So feel free to ignore this comment.
I agree with you that adding _if_valid or something equivalent to
highlight the conditional of this function would be a good idea.
I'll think further about that name but yours looks good ;)
>> +{
>> + vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
>> + vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> /*
>> * handle_pte_fault chooses page fault handler according to an entry which was
>> * read non-atomically. Before making any commitment, on those architectures
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists