Re: mm/ksm.c seems to be doing an unneeded _notify.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 03/11/2010 08:23 AM, Hugh Dickins wrote:
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:19:33PM +0200, Izik Eidus wrote:
On 03/10/2010 09:18 PM, Robin Holt wrote:
While reviewing ksm.c, I noticed that ksm.c does:

          if (pte_write(*ptep)) {
                  pte_t entry;

                  swapped = PageSwapCache(page);
                  flush_cache_page(vma, addr, page_to_pfn(page));
                  /*
                   * Ok this is tricky, when get_user_pages_fast() run it doesnt
                   * take any lock, therefore the check that we are going to make
                   * with the pagecount against the mapcount is racey and
                   * O_DIRECT can happen right after the check.
                   * So we clear the pte and flush the tlb before the check
                   * this assure us that no O_DIRECT can happen after the check
                   * or in the middle of the check.
                   */
                  entry = ptep_clear_flush(vma, addr, ptep);
                  /*
                   * Check that no O_DIRECT or similar I/O is in progress on the
                   * page
                   */
                  if (page_mapcount(page) + 1 + swapped != page_count(page)) {
                          set_pte_at_notify(mm, addr, ptep, entry);
                          goto out_unlock;
                  }
                  entry = pte_wrprotect(entry);
                  set_pte_at_notify(mm, addr, ptep, entry);


I would think the error case (where the page has an elevated page_count)
should not be using set_pte_at_notify.  In that event, you are simply
restoring the previous value.  Have I missed something or is this an
extraneous _notify?

Yes, I think you are right set_pte_at(mm, addr, ptep, entry);  would be
enough here.

I can`t remember or think any reason why I have used the _notify...

Lets just get ACK from Andrea and Hugh that they agree it isn't needed
_notify it's needed, we're downgrading permissions here.
Robin is not questioning that it's needed in the success case;
but in the case where we back out because the counts don't match,
and just put back the original entry, he's suggesting that then
the _notify isn't needed.

Yes exactly, and at that 'counts don`t match' path -
there is no need to call to _notify.

(I'm guessing that Robin is not making a significant improvement to KSM,
but rather trying to clarify his understanding of set_pte_at_notify.)


Yea, it won`t run unless at very rare cases

Hugh

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxx  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>

[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]