linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: rmap: make hugetlb pages participate in _nr_pages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <ZAkEecMShUAGwZ62@x1n>
Date:   Wed, 8 Mar 2023 16:56:09 -0500
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>
Cc:     Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Jiaqi Yan <jiaqiyan@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: rmap: make hugetlb pages participate in
 _nr_pages_mapped

On Tue, Mar 07, 2023 at 04:36:51PM -0800, James Houghton wrote:
> > >       if (likely(!compound)) {
> > > +             if (unlikely(folio_test_hugetlb(folio)))
> > > +                     VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(HPageVmemmapOptimized(&folio->page),
> > > +                                    page);

How about moving folio_test_hugetlb() into the BUG_ON()?

                VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(folio_test_hugetlb(folio) &&
                               HPageVmemmapOptimized(&folio->page),
                               page);

Note that BUG_ON() already contains an "unlikely".

> > >               first = atomic_inc_and_test(&page->_mapcount);
> > >               nr = first;
> > >               if (first && folio_test_large(folio)) {
> > >                       nr = atomic_inc_return_relaxed(mapped);
> > >                       nr = (nr < COMPOUND_MAPPED);
> > >               }
> > > -     } else if (folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio)) {
> > > -             /* That test is redundant: it's for safety or to optimize out */
> >
> > I 'think' removing this check is OK.  It would seem that the caller
> > knows if the folio is mappable.  If we want a similar test, we might be
> > able to use something like:
> >
> >         arch_hugetlb_valid_size(folio_size(folio))
> >
> 
> Ack. I think leaving the check(s) removed is fine.

Would it still be good to keep that as another BUG_ON()?

-- 
Peter Xu