On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 11:49 AM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:03 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 05:51:57PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > > static inline bool folio_lock_or_retry(struct folio *folio,
> > > - struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned int flags)
> > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned int flags,
> > > + bool *lock_dropped)
> >
> > I hate these double-return-value functions.
> >
> > How about this for an API:
> >
> > vm_fault_t folio_lock_fault(struct folio *folio, struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > {
> > might_sleep();
> > if (folio_trylock(folio))
> > return 0;
> > return __folio_lock_fault(folio, vmf);
> > }
> >
> > Then the users look like ...
> >
> > > @@ -3580,8 +3581,10 @@ static vm_fault_t remove_device_exclusive_entry(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > if (!folio_try_get(folio))
> > > return 0;
> > >
> > > - if (!folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vma->vm_mm, vmf->flags)) {
> > > + if (!folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vma, vmf->flags, &lock_dropped)) {
> > > folio_put(folio);
> > > + if (lock_dropped && vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK)
> > > + return VM_FAULT_VMA_UNLOCKED | VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> > > return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> > > }
> >
> > ret = folio_lock_fault(folio, vmf);
> > if (ret)
> > return ret;
> >
> > > @@ -3837,9 +3840,9 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > goto out_release;
> > > }
> > >
> > > - locked = folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vma->vm_mm, vmf->flags);
> > > -
> > > - if (!locked) {
> > > + if (!folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vma, vmf->flags, &lock_dropped)) {
> > > + if (lock_dropped && vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK)
> > > + ret |= VM_FAULT_VMA_UNLOCKED;
> > > ret |= VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> > > goto out_release;
> > > }
> >
> > ret |= folio_lock_fault(folio, vmf);
> > if (ret & VM_FAULT_RETRY)
> > goto out_release;
> >
> > ie instead of trying to reconstruct what __folio_lock_fault() did from
> > its outputs, we just let folio_lock_fault() tell us what it did.
>
> Thanks for taking a look!
> Ok, I think what you are suggesting is to have a new set of
> folio_lock_fault()/__folio_lock_fault() functions which return
> vm_fault_t directly, __folio_lock_fault() will use
> __folio_lock_or_retry() internally and will adjust its return value
> based on __folio_lock_or_retry()'s return and the lock releasing rules
> described in the comments for __folio_lock_or_retry(). Is my
> understanding correct?
Oh, after rereading I think you are suggesting to replace
folio_lock_or_retry()/__folio_lock_or_retry() with
folio_lock_fault()/__folio_lock_fault(), not to add them. Is that
right?
