On 2022/8/25 1:57, Mike Kravetz wrote: > Allocate a rw semaphore and hang off vm_private_data for > synchronization use by vmas that could be involved in pmd sharing. Only > add infrastructure for the new lock here. Actual use will be added in > subsequent patch. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@xxxxxxxxxx> <snip> > +static void hugetlb_vma_lock_free(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > +{ > + /* > + * Only present in sharable vmas. See comment in > + * __unmap_hugepage_range_final about the neeed to check both s/neeed/need/ > + * VM_SHARED and VM_MAYSHARE in free path I think there might be some wrong checks around this patch. As above comment said, we need to check both flags, so we should do something like below instead? if (!(vma->vm_flags & (VM_MAYSHARE | VM_SHARED) == (VM_MAYSHARE | VM_SHARED))) > + */ > + if (!vma || !(vma->vm_flags & (VM_MAYSHARE | VM_SHARED))) > + return; > + > + if (vma->vm_private_data) { > + kfree(vma->vm_private_data); > + vma->vm_private_data = NULL; > + } > +} > + > +static void hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc(struct vm_area_struct *vma) > +{ > + struct rw_semaphore *vma_sema; > + > + /* Only establish in (flags) sharable vmas */ > + if (!vma || !(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE)) > + return; > + > + /* Should never get here with non-NULL vm_private_data */ We can get here with non-NULL vm_private_data when called from hugetlb_vm_op_open during fork? Also there's one missing change on comment: diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c index d0617d64d718..4bc844a1d312 100644 --- a/mm/hugetlb.c +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c @@ -863,7 +863,7 @@ __weak unsigned long vma_mmu_pagesize(struct vm_area_struct *vma) * faults in a MAP_PRIVATE mapping. Only the process that called mmap() * is guaranteed to have their future faults succeed. * - * With the exception of reset_vma_resv_huge_pages() which is called at fork(), + * With the exception of hugetlb_dup_vma_private() which is called at fork(), * the reserve counters are updated with the hugetlb_lock held. It is safe * to reset the VMA at fork() time as it is not in use yet and there is no * chance of the global counters getting corrupted as a result of the values. Otherwise this patch looks good to me. Thanks. Thanks, Miaohe Lin