[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190924024721.GD28074@xz-x1>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2019 10:47:21 +0800
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
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>,
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>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
"Dr . David Alan Gilbert" <dgilbert@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 05/10] mm: Return faster for non-fatal signals in user
mode faults
On Mon, Sep 23, 2019 at 11:03:49AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 22, 2019 at 9:26 PM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patch is a preparation of removing that special path by allowing
> > the page fault to return even faster if we were interrupted by a
> > non-fatal signal during a user-mode page fault handling routine.
>
> So I really wish saome other vm person would also review these things,
> but looking over this series once more, this is the patch I probably
> like the least.
>
> And the reason I like it the least is that I have a hard time
> explaining to myself what the code does and why, and why it's so full
> of this pattern:
>
> > - if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) && fatal_signal_pending(current))
> > + if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) &&
> > + fault_should_check_signal(user_mode(regs)))
> > return;
>
> which isn't all that pretty.
>
> Why isn't this just
>
> static bool fault_signal_pending(unsigned int fault_flags, struct
> pt_regs *regs)
> {
> return (fault_flags & VM_FAULT_RETRY) &&
> (fatal_signal_pending(current) ||
> (user_mode(regs) && signal_pending(current)));
> }
>
> and then most of the users would be something like
>
> if (fault_signal_pending(fault, regs))
> return;
>
> and the exceptions could do their own thing.
>
> Now the code is prettier and more understandable, I feel.
>
> And if something doesn't follow this pattern, maybe it either _should_
> follow that pattern or it should just not use the helper but explain
> why it has an unusual pattern.
I see the point on why this patch is disliked - Yeh it should look
better to have a single function to cover the most common cases.
Besides, I attempted to squash the extra signal_pending() check into
some existing code path but maybe it's not really benefiting much
while instead it makes the review even harder. So I plan to isolate
those paths out too, from something like:
====================================
--- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
@@ -291,14 +291,15 @@ do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
fault = __do_page_fault(mm, addr, fsr, flags, tsk);
- /* If we need to retry but a fatal signal is pending, handle the
+ /* If we need to retry but a signal is pending, try to handle the
* signal first. We do not need to release the mmap_sem because
* it would already be released in __lock_page_or_retry in
* mm/filemap.c. */
- if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) && fatal_signal_pending(current)) {
- if (!user_mode(regs))
+ if (unlikely(fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY && signal_pending(current))) {
+ if (fatal_signal_pending(current) && !user_mode(regs))
goto no_context;
- return 0;
+ if (user_mode(regs))
+ return 0;
}
====================================
into:
====================================
--- a/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/arm/mm/fault.c
@@ -301,6 +301,11 @@ do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs)
return 0;
}
+ /* Fast path to handle user mode signals */
+ if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) && user_mode(regs) &&
+ signal_pending(current))
+ return 0;
+
/*
* Major/minor page fault accounting is only done on the
* initial attempt. If we go through a retry, it is extremely
====================================
I hope it'll be better with that. A complete patch attached too.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
View attachment "0001-mm-Return-faster-for-non-fatal-signals-in-user-mode-.patch" of type "text/plain" (14604 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists