[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whwY0WT046fqM-zdHu9vamUjgkvmd36gCd4qSaeYy98nA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 10:02:42 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: Fetch the dirty bit before we reset the pte
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:27 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
<aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> In copy_present_page, after we mark the pte non-writable, we should
> check for previous dirty bit updates and make sure we don't lose the dirty
> bit on reset.
No, we'll just remove that entirely.
Do you have a test-case that shows a problem? I have a patch that I
was going to delay until 5.10 because I didn't think it mattered in
practice..
The second part of this patch would be to add a sequence count
protection to fast-GUP pinning, so that GUP and fork() couldn't race,
but I haven't written that part.
Here's the first patch anyway. If you actually have a test-case where
this matters, I guess I need to apply it now..
Linus
Download attachment "fork-cleanup" of type "application/octet-stream" (2530 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists