Re: [PATCH 06/14] mm: handle_pte_fault() use pte_offset_map_maywrite_nolock()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 21.08.24 12:03, Qi Zheng wrote:


On 2024/8/21 17:53, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 21.08.24 11:51, Qi Zheng wrote:


On 2024/8/21 17:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 21.08.24 11:24, Qi Zheng wrote:


On 2024/8/21 17:17, LEROY Christophe wrote:


Le 21/08/2024 à 10:18, Qi Zheng a écrit :
In handle_pte_fault(), we may modify the vmf->pte after acquiring the
vmf->ptl, so convert it to using pte_offset_map_maywrite_nolock().
But
since we already do the pte_same() check, so there is no need to get
pmdval to do pmd_same() check, just pass NULL to pmdvalp parameter.

Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
      mm/memory.c | 9 +++++++--
      1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 93c0c25433d02..d3378e98faf13 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -5504,9 +5504,14 @@ static vm_fault_t handle_pte_fault(struct
vm_fault *vmf)
               * pmd by anon khugepaged, since that takes mmap_lock in
write
               * mode; but shmem or file collapse to THP could still
morph
               * it into a huge pmd: just retry later if so.
+         *
+         * Use the maywrite version to indicate that vmf->pte
will be
+         * modified, but since we will use pte_same() to detect the
+         * change of the pte entry, there is no need to get pmdval.
               */
-        vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_nolock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
-                         vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
+        vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_maywrite_nolock(vmf->vma->vm_mm,
+                              vmf->pmd, vmf->address,
+                              NULL, &vmf->ptl);

I think we discussed that passing NULL should be forbidden for that
function.

Yes, but for some maywrite case, there is no need to get pmdval to
do pmd_same() check. So I passed NULL and added a comment to
explain this.

I wonder if it's better to pass a dummy variable instead. One has to
think harder why that is required compared to blindly passing "NULL" :)

You are afraid that subsequent caller will abuse this function, right?

Yes! "oh, I don't need a pmdval, why would I? let's just pass NULL, easy" :)

My initial concern was that this would add a useless local vaiable, but
perhaps that is not a big deal.

How many of these "special" instances do we have?


Both are fine for me. ;)

Also no strong opinion, but having to pass a variable makes you think what you are supposed to do with it and why it is not optional.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux