Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix __wp_page_copy_user fallback path for remote mm

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

 



On 12.11.24 10:48, Asahi Lina wrote:


On 11/11/24 8:24 AM, Alistair Popple wrote:

David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:

On 07.11.24 18:32, Asahi Lina wrote:
On 11/8/24 2:14 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
I recall that there is still a problem with false-positives on
folio_test_anon() with ZONE_DEVICE pages, so it's maybe not that
easy ... and the whole get_dev_pagemap() stuff is nasty.

Specifically FS DAX reuses PAGE_MAPPING_ANON in
include/linux/page-flags.h

     /*
      * Different with flags above, this flag is used only for fsdax mode.  It
      * indicates that this page->mapping is now under reflink case.
      */
     #define PAGE_MAPPING_DAX_SHARED	((void *)0x1)

FS DAX pages are never anon though, so you could probably test for
!vma_is_dax() and/or add an implementation of is_fsdax_page().

Likely we would have to do what GUP does, and temporarily grab a pgmap
reference. Gah.


So if we sort out the pagemap stuff and the possibly wrong
folio_test_anon() on some ZONE_DEVICE pages (but not all, because IIRC
DEVICE_PRIVATE can be anon ...), it might be doable.

Correct, DEVICE_PRIVATE and DEVICE_COHERENT pages are always anon (at
least for now).

But it sounds ugly, especially because that code might change soon and
not require messing with ZONE_DEVICE pages on that level.

Yes, I'm hopoing to get the next version of that series posted this
week. I found a couple of other FS DAX bugs that slowed me down.

  - Alistair

And then, we'd not be able to handle VM_PFNMAP cleanly ...


If this is all going to be fixed another way soon then I think there's
no rush to get a workaround in earlier than that, I just don't want it
to fall by the wayside.

We have my original patch downstream in libkrunfw (which despite the
lockdep complaints does work in practice)

I assume it's sufficient to deadlock when a writer pops up after you succeeded with the first read-locking, and before you start the second read-locking. IIRC, rwsem is a fair lock, so read-locking when already-read-locked is not guaranteed to work.

That's why lockdep complains.

--
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