On Mon, Jan 31, 2022 at 12:49 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 1/31/22 12:35, Will McVicker wrote:
> > This fixes commit 54d516b1d62f ("mm/gup: small refactoring: simplify
> > try_grab_page()") which refactors try_grab_page() to call
> > try_grab_compound_head() with refs=1. The refactor commit is causing
> > pin_user_pages() to return -ENOMEM when we try to pin one user page that
> > is migratable and not in the movable zone. Previously, try_grab_page()
> > didn't check if the page was pinnable for FOLL_PIN. To match the same
> > functionality, this fix adds the check `refs > 1 &&` to skip the call to
> > is_pinnable_page().
> >
>
> That's a clear write-up of what you're seeing, what caused it, and how
> you'd like to correct it. The previous code had a loophole, and you want
> to keep that loophole. More below...
>
> > This issue is reproducible with the Pixel 6 on the 5.15 LTS kernel. Here
> > is the call stack to reproduce the -ENOMEM error:
> ...
> > Fixes: 54d516b1d62f ("mm/gup: small refactoring: simplify try_grab_page()")
> > Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Minchan Kim <minchan@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Will McVicker <willmcvicker@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/gup.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > index f0af462ac1e2..0509c49c46a3 100644
> > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ struct page *try_grab_compound_head(struct page *page,
> > * right zone, so fail and let the caller fall back to the slow
> > * path.
> > */
> > - if (unlikely((flags & FOLL_LONGTERM) &&
> > + if (refs > 1 && unlikely((flags & FOLL_LONGTERM) &&
> > !is_pinnable_page(page)))
> > return NULL;
> >
>
> ...but are you really sure that this is the best way to "fix" the
> problem? This trades correctness for "bug-for-bug compatibility" with
> the previous code. It says, "it's OK to violate the pinnable and
> longterm checks, as long as you do it one page at a time, rather than in
> larger chunks.
>
> Wouldn't it be better to try to fix up the calling code so that it's
> not in violation of these zone rules?
>
>
> thanks,
> --
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA
Hi John,
Thanks for the prompt response! I'm not super familiar with what
PIN+LONGTERM conditions require, but if this was previously a bug,
then I definitely don't want to re-introduce it. Since you're
confirming that, let me sync-up with the driver owner to see how I can
fix this on the side.
Thanks!
Will
