[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <15bb1139-97aa-484c-9087-dccf6612ed39@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2024 14:55:12 +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 14:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> 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.
Now I get it, I compiled it all on s390x, but not the individual
patches, so patch #2 hid the issue in patch #1. Sneaky. :)
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists