[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpGBaAJof=5-Xh1saoN9dhOauMiHBZzb0crVNn9OyOeZHw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2023 13:12:15 -0700
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Huacai Chen <chenhuacai@...nel.org>,
WANG Xuerui <kernel@...0n.name>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Paul Walmsley <paul.walmsley@...ive.com>,
Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@...belt.com>,
Albert Ou <aou@...s.berkeley.edu>,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
x86@...nel.org, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, loongarch@...ts.linux.dev,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-riscv@...ts.infradead.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH rfc -next 01/10] mm: add a generic VMA lock-based page
fault handler
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 9:15 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> > +int try_vma_locked_page_fault(struct vm_locked_fault *vmlf, vm_fault_t *ret)
> > +{
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > + vm_fault_t fault;
>
>
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 05:53:29PM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> > +#define VM_LOCKED_FAULT_INIT(_name, _mm, _address, _fault_flags, _vm_flags, _regs, _fault_code) \
> > + _name.mm = _mm; \
> > + _name.address = _address; \
> > + _name.fault_flags = _fault_flags; \
> > + _name.vm_flags = _vm_flags; \
> > + _name.regs = _regs; \
> > + _name.fault_code = _fault_code
>
> More consolidated code is a good idea; no question. But I don't think
> this is the right way to do it.
>
> > +int __weak arch_vma_check_access(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > + struct vm_locked_fault *vmlf);
>
> This should be:
>
> #ifndef vma_check_access
> bool vma_check_access(struct vm_area_struct *vma, )
> {
> return (vma->vm_flags & vm_flags) == 0;
> }
> #endif
>
> and then arches which want to do something different can just define
> vma_check_access.
>
> > +int try_vma_locked_page_fault(struct vm_locked_fault *vmlf, vm_fault_t *ret)
> > +{
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma;
> > + vm_fault_t fault;
>
> Declaring the vmf in this function and then copying it back is just wrong.
> We need to declare vm_fault_t earlier (in the arch fault handler) and
> pass it in.
Did you mean to say "we need to declare vmf (struct vm_fault) earlier
(in the arch fault handler) and pass it in." ?
> I don't think that creating struct vm_locked_fault is the
> right idea either.
>
> > + if (!(vmlf->fault_flags & FAULT_FLAG_USER))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + vma = lock_vma_under_rcu(vmlf->mm, vmlf->address);
> > + if (!vma)
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + if (arch_vma_check_access(vma, vmlf)) {
> > + vma_end_read(vma);
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > + }
> > +
> > + fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, vmlf->address,
> > + vmlf->fault_flags | FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK,
> > + vmlf->regs);
> > + *ret = fault;
> > +
> > + if (!(fault & (VM_FAULT_RETRY | VM_FAULT_COMPLETED)))
> > + vma_end_read(vma);
> > +
> > + if ((fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY))
> > + count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_RETRY);
> > + else
> > + count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
> > +
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > #endif /* CONFIG_PER_VMA_LOCK */
> >
> > #ifndef __PAGETABLE_P4D_FOLDED
> > --
> > 2.27.0
> >
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists