On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:44:00PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/22, Peter Xu wrote:
> >
> > Or I can also do it in inverted order if you think better:
> >
> > if (unlikely(copy_ret == COPY_MM_BREAK_COW)) {
> > WARN_ON_ONCE(!data.cow_new_page);
> > ...
> > }
>
> Peter, let me say this again. I don't understand this code enough, you
> can safely ignore me ;)
Why? I appreciate every single comment from you! :)
>
> However. Personally I strongly prefer the above. Personally I really
> dislike this part of 4/5:
>
> again:
> + /* We don't reset this for COPY_MM_BREAK_COW */
> + memset(&data, 0, sizeof(data));
> +
> +again_break_cow:
>
> If we rely on "copy_ret == COPY_MM_BREAK_COW" we can unify "again" and
> "again_break_cow", we don't need to clear ->cow_new_page, this makes the
> logic more understandable. To me at least ;)
I see your point. I'll definitely try it out. I think I'll at least use what
you preferred above since it's actually the same as before, logically. Then
I'll consider drop the again_break_cow, as long as I'm still as confident after
I do the change on not leaking anything :).
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
