[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20190923042523.10027-11-peterx@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2019 12:25:23 +0800
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Maya Gokhale <gokhale2@...l.gov>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...tuozzo.com>,
Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>, peterx@...hat.com,
Martin Cracauer <cracauer@...s.org>,
Marty McFadden <mcfadden8@...l.gov>, Shaohua Li <shli@...com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 10/10] mm/userfaultfd: Honor FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE in fault path
Userfaultfd fault path was by default killable even if the caller does
not have FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE. That makes sense before in that when
with gup we don't have FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE properly set before. Now
after previous patch we've got FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE applied even for
gup code so it should also make sense to let userfaultfd to honor the
FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE.
Because we're unconditionally setting FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE in gup code
right now, this patch should have no functional change. It also
cleaned the code a little bit by introducing some helpers.
Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
---
fs/userfaultfd.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
index 2b3b48e94ae4..8c5863ccbf0e 100644
--- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
@@ -334,6 +334,30 @@ static inline bool userfaultfd_must_wait(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
return ret;
}
+/* Should pair with userfaultfd_signal_pending() */
+static inline long userfaultfd_get_blocking_state(unsigned int flags)
+{
+ if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE)
+ return TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE;
+
+ if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE)
+ return TASK_KILLABLE;
+
+ return TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE;
+}
+
+/* Should pair with userfaultfd_get_blocking_state() */
+static inline bool userfaultfd_signal_pending(unsigned int flags)
+{
+ if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE)
+ return signal_pending(current);
+
+ if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE)
+ return fatal_signal_pending(current);
+
+ return false;
+}
+
/*
* The locking rules involved in returning VM_FAULT_RETRY depending on
* FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY, FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT and
@@ -355,7 +379,7 @@ vm_fault_t handle_userfault(struct vm_fault *vmf, unsigned long reason)
struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx;
struct userfaultfd_wait_queue uwq;
vm_fault_t ret = VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
- bool must_wait, return_to_userland;
+ bool must_wait;
long blocking_state;
/*
@@ -462,9 +486,7 @@ vm_fault_t handle_userfault(struct vm_fault *vmf, unsigned long reason)
uwq.ctx = ctx;
uwq.waken = false;
- return_to_userland = vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE;
- blocking_state = return_to_userland ? TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE :
- TASK_KILLABLE;
+ blocking_state = userfaultfd_get_blocking_state(vmf->flags);
spin_lock_irq(&ctx->fault_pending_wqh.lock);
/*
@@ -490,8 +512,7 @@ vm_fault_t handle_userfault(struct vm_fault *vmf, unsigned long reason)
up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
if (likely(must_wait && !READ_ONCE(ctx->released) &&
- (return_to_userland ? !signal_pending(current) :
- !fatal_signal_pending(current)))) {
+ userfaultfd_signal_pending(vmf->flags))) {
wake_up_poll(&ctx->fd_wqh, EPOLLIN);
schedule();
ret |= VM_FAULT_MAJOR;
@@ -513,8 +534,7 @@ vm_fault_t handle_userfault(struct vm_fault *vmf, unsigned long reason)
set_current_state(blocking_state);
if (READ_ONCE(uwq.waken) ||
READ_ONCE(ctx->released) ||
- (return_to_userland ? signal_pending(current) :
- fatal_signal_pending(current)))
+ userfaultfd_signal_pending(vmf->flags))
break;
schedule();
}
--
2.21.0
Powered by blists - more mailing lists