[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y1+XCALog8bW7Hgl@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2022 10:36:08 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
jroedel@...e.de, ubizjak@...il.com,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/13] mm: Update ptep_get_lockless()s comment
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 06:47:23PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Also, it's worth noting that zap_pte_range() does this sanity test:
>
> if (unlikely(page_mapcount(page) < 0))
> print_bad_pte(vma, addr, ptent, page);
>
> and that is likely worthless now (because it hasn't actually
> decremented the mapcount yet). I didn't remove it, because I wasn't
> sure which option was best:
>
> (a) just remove it entirely
>
> (b) change the "< 0" to "<= 0"
>
> (c) move it to clean_and_free_pages_and_swap_cache() that actually
> does the page_zap_pte_rmap() now.
I'm leaning towards (c); simply because the error case is so terrifying
I feel we should check for it (and I do have vague memories of us
actually hitting something like this in the very distant past).
Powered by blists - more mailing lists