On Fri, 28 Feb 2020 15:08:35 -0800
John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 2/28/20 7:43 AM, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > In case pin fails, we need to unpin, a simple put_page will not be
> > enough
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/gup.c | 5 ++++-
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > index f589299b0d4a..0b9a806898f3 100644
> > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > @@ -2134,7 +2134,10 @@ static int gup_pte_range(pmd_t pmd, unsigned
> > long addr, unsigned long end, goto pte_unmap;
> >
> > if (unlikely(pte_val(pte) != pte_val(*ptep))) {
> > - put_page(head);
> > + if (flags & FOLL_GET)
> > + put_page(head);
> > + else if (flags & FOLL_PIN)
> > + unpin_user_page(head);
>
> Hi Claudio,
>
> Instead, I think that should actually be:
>
> put_compound_head(page, 1, flags);
that makes sense, yes :)
I'll fix it in the next iteration
>
> which does a bit more (bug checks and /proc/vmstat instrumentation)
> than your diff, but has the same basic idea: call the right "put"
> function.
>
> ...oh, actually, I see you have the commit hash in the subject line.
> Instead, it should be in the commit description. Let's maybe change
> the subject line to approx:
>
> mm/gup: Fix a missing put_compound_head() call in gup_pte_range()
>
> And the write up...how about something like this, if you like it:
>
>
> try_grab_compound_head() must be undone via put_compound_head(), not
> put_page(). This was missed in the original implementation of the
> gup/dma tracking patch, so fix it now.
>
> Fixes: 0ea2781c3de4 ("mm/gup: track FOLL_PIN pages")
>
>
>
> (Aside: I'm using the linux-next commit hash. How does one get the
> correct hash before it goes to mainline? I guess maintainer scripts
> fix all those up?)
my idea was that my patch should be used as fix-up, so the actual
content of the commit message is not relevant
> It's also good to Cc some reviewers in case I'm overlooking
> something, so I'm adding Jan and Kirill.
>
> thanks,
