On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 3:35 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi, Suren, > > On Fri, Apr 14, 2023 at 03:14:23PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote: > > > It also already ignores invalid faults: > > > > > > if (ret & (VM_FAULT_ERROR | VM_FAULT_RETRY)) > > > return; > > > > Can there be a case of (!VM_FAULT_ERROR && VM_FAULT_RETRY) - basically > > we need to retry but no errors happened? If so then this condition > > would double-count pagefaults in such cases. > > If ret==VM_FAULT_RETRY it should return here already, so I assume > mm_account_fault() itself is fine regarding fault retries? > > Note that I think "ret & (VM_FAULT_ERROR | VM_FAULT_RETRY)" above means > "either ERROR or RETRY we'll skip the accounting". > > IMHO we should have 3 cases here: > > - ERROR && !RETRY > error triggered of any kind > > - RETRY && !ERROR > we need to try one more time > > - !RETRY && !ERROR > we finished the fault After looking some more into mm_account_fault(), I think it would be fine to count the faults which produced errors. IIUC these counters represent the total number of faults, not the number of valid and successful faults. If so then I think simply using VM_FAULT_RETRY should be ok without considering all possible combinations. WDYT? > > I don't think ERROR & RETRY can even be set at the same time so I assume > there's no option 4) - a RETRY should imply no ERROR already, even though > it's still incomplete so need another attempt. > > Thanks, > > -- > Peter Xu >
