[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c0309ab6-8bae-42b7-8d27-1df895689fb8@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 16:56:05 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Lance Yang <ioworker0@...il.com>
Cc: akpm@...ux-foundation.org, ryan.roberts@....com, 21cnbao@...il.com,
baolin.wang@...ux.alibaba.com, ziy@...dia.com, fengwei.yin@...el.com,
ying.huang@...el.com, libang.li@...group.com, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using
folio_pte_batch()
On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
>> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
>> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
>> static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
>> pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
>> {
>> - unsigned int count, i, nr = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>> - unsigned long pfn = folio_pfn(folio);
>> + const fpb_t fpb_flags = FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY;
>> + unsigned int count = (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
> system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes? Seems to me
> that count becomes 0. Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
> problem entirely?
>
> folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
> case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
unfortunate.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists