[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190726084423.GA16112@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:44:23 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"matthew.wilcox@...cle.com" <matthew.wilcox@...cle.com>,
"kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
"peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
"rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>,
"william.kucharski@...cle.com" <william.kucharski@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 2/4] uprobe: use original page when all uprobes are
removed
On 07/25, Song Liu wrote:
>
> I guess I know the case now. We can probably avoid this with an simp.le
> check for old_page == new_page?
better yet, I think we can check PageAnon(old_page) and avoid the unnecessary
__replace_page() in this case. See the patch below.
Anyway, why __replace_page() needs to lock both pages? This doesn't look nice
even if it were correct. I think it can do lock_page(old_page) later.
Oleg.
--- a/kernel/events/uprobes.c
+++ b/kernel/events/uprobes.c
@@ -488,6 +488,10 @@ int uprobe_write_opcode(struct arch_uprobe *auprobe, struct mm_struct *mm,
ref_ctr_updated = 1;
}
+ ret = 0;
+ if (!is_register && !PageAnon(old_page))
+ goto put_old;
+
ret = anon_vma_prepare(vma);
if (ret)
goto put_old;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists