On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:21 AM Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 10:17:26AM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> > - folio_move_anon_rmap(src_folio, dst_vma);
> > - WRITE_ONCE(src_folio->index, linear_page_index(dst_vma, dst_addr));
> > -
> > src_pmdval = pmdp_huge_clear_flush(src_vma, src_addr, src_pmd);
> > /* Folio got pinned from under us. Put it back and fail the move. */
> > if (folio_maybe_dma_pinned(src_folio)) {
> > @@ -2270,6 +2267,9 @@ int move_pages_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd, pm
> > goto unlock_ptls;
> > }
> >
> > + folio_move_anon_rmap(src_folio, dst_vma);
> > + WRITE_ONCE(src_folio->index, linear_page_index(dst_vma, dst_addr));
> > +
>
> This use of WRITE_ONCE scares me. We hold the folio locked. Why do
> we need to use WRITE_ONCE? Who's looking at folio->index without
> holding the folio lock?
Indeed that seems to be unnecessary here. Both here and in
move_present_pte() we are holding folio lock while moving the page. I
must have just blindly copied that from Andrea's original patch [1].
https://gitlab.com/aarcange/aa/-/commit/2aec7aea56b10438a3881a20a411aa4b1fc19e92
