On 12/04/2018 05:25 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 05:18:32PM -0800, anthony.yznaga@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 12/04/2018 04:48 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 04, 2018 at 02:45:26PM -0800, Anthony Yznaga wrote:
>>>> +static inline int page_has_type(struct page *page)
>>>> +{
>>>> + return (PageType(page, 0) &&
>>>> + ((page->page_type & PAGE_TYPE_ALL) != PAGE_TYPE_ALL));
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>> I think this is a bit complex, and a bit of a pain to update as we add
>>> new page types. How about this?
>>>
>>> return (int)page_type < -128;
>>>
>>> (I'm open to appropriate #defines to make this more obvious that it's ~0x7F)
>> I thought about having this:
>>
>> #define PAGE_TYPE_END 0xffffff80
>>
>> static int inline page_has_type(struct page *page)
>> {
>> return page->page_type > PAGE_TYPE_BASE &&
>> page->page_type < PAGE_TYPE_END;
>> }
>>
>> But I opted for the additional complexity to avoid more false-positives from
>> possibly corrupted values. I'm certainly fine with a simple approach, though.
> The way I'm thinking about this field is that usually it's _mapcount
> which is 0xffffffff to represent 0. We allow a certain small amount
> of underflow and still treat it as a mapcount. We also allow for some
> amount of overflow. So to be utterly precise, what you had there would
> have been fine, but for simplicity, I'd rather just do a signed compare
> against -128.
The signed compare does not allow for mapcount overflow. Is that acceptable?
False-positives would be benign for /proc/kpagecount though from a debug
perspective it could be helpful to see overflowed mapcounts. Some future
caller would need separate consideration.
