[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <9d582a09dbcf12e562ac5fe0ba05e9248a58f5e0.1727332572.git.zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2024 14:46:22 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: david@...hat.com,
hughd@...gle.com,
willy@...radead.org,
muchun.song@...ux.dev,
vbabka@...nel.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
rppt@...nel.org,
vishal.moola@...il.com,
peterx@...hat.com,
ryan.roberts@....com,
christophe.leroy2@...soprasteria.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Subject: [PATCH v5 09/13] mm: mremap: move_ptes() use pte_offset_map_rw_nolock()
In move_ptes(), we may modify the new_pte after acquiring the new_ptl, so
convert it to using pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(). Now new_pte is none, so
hpage_collapse_scan_file() path can not find this by traversing
file->f_mapping, so there is no concurrency with retract_page_tables(). In
addition, we already hold the exclusive mmap_lock, so this new_pte page is
stable, so there is no need to get pmdval and do pmd_same() check.
Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
---
mm/mremap.c | 11 ++++++++++-
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
index 24712f8dbb6b5..9dffd4a5b4d18 100644
--- a/mm/mremap.c
+++ b/mm/mremap.c
@@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ static int move_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *old_pmd,
spinlock_t *old_ptl, *new_ptl;
bool force_flush = false;
unsigned long len = old_end - old_addr;
+ pmd_t dummy_pmdval;
int err = 0;
/*
@@ -175,7 +176,15 @@ static int move_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *old_pmd,
err = -EAGAIN;
goto out;
}
- new_pte = pte_offset_map_nolock(mm, new_pmd, new_addr, &new_ptl);
+ /*
+ * Now new_pte is none, so hpage_collapse_scan_file() path can not find
+ * this by traversing file->f_mapping, so there is no concurrency with
+ * retract_page_tables(). In addition, we already hold the exclusive
+ * mmap_lock, so this new_pte page is stable, so there is no need to get
+ * pmdval and do pmd_same() check.
+ */
+ new_pte = pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(mm, new_pmd, new_addr, &dummy_pmdval,
+ &new_ptl);
if (!new_pte) {
pte_unmap_unlock(old_pte, old_ptl);
err = -EAGAIN;
--
2.20.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists