On Thu, Apr 08, 2021 at 04:43:20PM -0700, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> Previously, we did a dance where we had one calling path in
> userfaultfd.c (mfill_atomic_pte), but then we split it into two in
> shmem_fs.h (shmem_{mcopy_atomic,mfill_zeropage}_pte), and then rejoined
> into a single shared function in shmem.c (shmem_mfill_atomic_pte).
>
> This is all a bit overly complex. Just call the single combined shmem
> function directly, allowing us to clean up various branches,
> boilerplate, etc.
>
> While we're touching this function, two other small cleanup changes:
> - offset is equivalent to pgoff, so we can get rid of offset entirely.
> - Split two VM_BUG_ON cases into two statements. This means the line
> number reported when the BUG is hit specifies exactly which condition
> was true.
(For my own preference, I'll avoid touching the latter one)
>
> Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> include/linux/shmem_fs.h | 15 +++++-------
> mm/shmem.c | 52 +++++++++++++---------------------------
> mm/userfaultfd.c | 10 +++-----
> 3 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 52 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/linux/shmem_fs.h b/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> index d82b6f396588..919e36671fe6 100644
> --- a/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/shmem_fs.h
> @@ -122,21 +122,18 @@ static inline bool shmem_file(struct file *file)
> extern bool shmem_charge(struct inode *inode, long pages);
> extern void shmem_uncharge(struct inode *inode, long pages);
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_USERFAULTFD
> #ifdef CONFIG_SHMEM
> extern int shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd,
> struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> unsigned long dst_addr,
> unsigned long src_addr,
Not a problem of your patch, but it's just that we passed in odd src_addr
values into mfill_atomic_pte() for zeropage case because we loop on src_addr in
__mcopy_atomic()... Then it'll further passed into shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte()
now after this patch (as shmem_mfill_zeropage_pte() probably only did one thing
good which is to clear src_addr). Not a big deal, though.
All the rest looks sane to me.
Reviewed-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
I'll wait to look at the selftests since in all cases they should be prone to
rebase (either based on the v2 cleanup I posted, or you'd need to post without
err() - then I can rebase again), so I figured maybe I just read the new
version.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
