On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 08:49:30PM +0200, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 12:13:35 -0400
> Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Use the general page fault accounting by passing regs into handle_mm_fault().
> > It naturally solve the issue of multiple page fault accounting when page fault
> > retry happened.
> >
> > CC: Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Vasily Gorbik <gor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > CC: linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > arch/s390/mm/fault.c | 16 +---------------
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> > index ab6d7eedcfab..4d62ca7d3e09 100644
> > --- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> > +++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
> > @@ -479,7 +479,7 @@ static inline vm_fault_t do_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int access)
> > * make sure we exit gracefully rather than endlessly redo
> > * the fault.
> > */
> > - fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, address, flags, NULL);
> > + fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, address, flags, regs);
> > if (fault_signal_pending(fault, regs)) {
> > fault = VM_FAULT_SIGNAL;
> > if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT)
> > @@ -489,21 +489,7 @@ static inline vm_fault_t do_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int access)
> > if (unlikely(fault & VM_FAULT_ERROR))
> > goto out_up;
>
> There are two cases here where we skipped the accounting,
> fault_signal_pending() and VM_FAULT_ERROR, similar to other archs.
>
> fault_signal_pending() should be ok, because that only seems to be true
> for fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY, in which case the new approach also skips
> the accounting.
IMHO it's still possible to have fault_signal_pending() return true even if the
fault is not with VM_FAULT_RETRY, e.g., when the signal is delivered right
after the fault is correctly handled for the thread. However I hope we can
avoid considering that too even if so...
>
> But for VM_FAULT_ERROR, the new approach would do accounting, IIUC. Is
> that changed on purpose? See also my reply on [PATCH 01/26].
(replied in the other thread)
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
