On 2018/08/23 20:59, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 23-08-18 20:30:48, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
>> Commit 93065ac753e44438 ("mm, oom: distinguish blockable mode for mmu
>> notifiers") added "continue;" without calling tlb_finish_mmu(). I don't
>> know whether tlb_flush_pending imbalance causes problems other than
>> extra cost, but at least it looks strange.
>
> tlb_flush_pending has mm scope and it would confuse
> mm_tlb_flush_pending. At least ptep_clear_flush could get confused and
> flush unnecessarily for prot_none entries AFAICS. Other paths shouldn't
> trigger for oom victims. Even ptep_clear_flush is unlikely to happen.
> So nothing really earth shattering but I do agree that it looks weird
> and should be fixed.
OK. But what is the reason we call tlb_gather_mmu() before
mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_nonblock() ?
I want that the fix explains why we can't do
- tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm, start, end);
if (mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start_nonblock(mm, start, end)) {
ret = false;
continue;
}
+ tlb_gather_mmu(&tlb, mm, start, end);
instead.
