[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <b9d9af94-5935-4034-bf3f-9ba283df3ede@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:30:34 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, Heiko Carstens
<hca@...ux.ibm.com>, Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm/userfaultfd: don't place zeropages when
zeropages are disallowed
On 11.04.24 14:26, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 06:17:36PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>
> Hi David,
> ...
>> static int mfill_atomic_pte_zeropage(pmd_t *dst_pmd,
>> struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
>> unsigned long dst_addr)
>> @@ -324,6 +355,9 @@ static int mfill_atomic_pte_zeropage(pmd_t *dst_pmd,
>> spinlock_t *ptl;
>> int ret;
>>
>> + if (mm_forbids_zeropage(dst_vma->mm))
>
> I assume, you were going to pass dst_vma->vm_mm here?
> This patch does not compile otherwise.
Ah, I compiled it only on x86, where the parameter is ignored ... and
for testing the code path I forced mm_forbids_zeropage to be 1 on x86.
Yes, this must be dst_vma->vm_mm.
Thanks!
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists