On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 10:19 PM Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 12:53 AM Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > The vm_flags of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it is a
> > bad access, directly set fault to VM_FAULT_BADACCESS and handle error,
> > no need to lock_mm_and_find_vma() and check vm_flags again, the latency
> > time reduce 34% in lmbench 'lat_sig -P 1 prot lat_sig'.
>
> The change makes sense to me. Per-VMA lock is enough to keep
> vma->vm_flags stable, so no need to retry with mmap_lock.
>
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/mm/fault.c | 4 +++-
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > index 9bb9f395351a..405f9aa831bd 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/fault.c
> > @@ -572,7 +572,9 @@ static int __kprobes do_page_fault(unsigned long far, unsigned long esr,
> >
> > if (!(vma->vm_flags & vm_flags)) {
> > vma_end_read(vma);
> > - goto lock_mmap;
> > + fault = VM_FAULT_BADACCESS;
> > + count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
>
> nit: VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS accounting here seems correct to me but
> unrelated to the main change. Either splitting into a separate patch
> or mentioning this additional fixup in the changelog would be helpful.
The above nit applies to all the patches after this one, so I won't
comment on each one separately. If you decide to split or adjust the
changelog please do that for each patch.
>
> > + goto done;
> > }
> > fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, mm_flags | FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK, regs);
> > if (!(fault & (VM_FAULT_RETRY | VM_FAULT_COMPLETED)))
> > --
> > 2.27.0
> >
