On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 09:47:38AM +0000, Russell King - ARM Linux admin wrote:
>On Sun, Jan 26, 2020 at 05:47:57PM +0300, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
>> 18.01.2020 02:22, Wei Yang пишет:
>> > Use the general helper instead of do it by hand.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> > ---
>> > mm/mremap.c | 7 ++-----
>> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/mm/mremap.c b/mm/mremap.c
>> > index c2af8ba4ba43..a258914f3ee1 100644
>> > --- a/mm/mremap.c
>> > +++ b/mm/mremap.c
>> > @@ -253,11 +253,8 @@ unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> >
>> > for (; old_addr < old_end; old_addr += extent, new_addr += extent) {
>> > cond_resched();
>> > - next = (old_addr + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
>> > - /* even if next overflowed, extent below will be ok */
>> > + next = pmd_addr_end(old_addr, old_end);
>> > extent = next - old_addr;
>> > - if (extent > old_end - old_addr)
>> > - extent = old_end - old_addr;
>> > old_pmd = get_old_pmd(vma->vm_mm, old_addr);
>> > if (!old_pmd)
>> > continue;
>> > @@ -301,7 +298,7 @@ unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> >
>> > if (pte_alloc(new_vma->vm_mm, new_pmd))
>> > break;
>> > - next = (new_addr + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
>> > + next = pmd_addr_end(new_addr, new_addr + len);
>> > if (extent > next - new_addr)
>> > extent = next - new_addr;
>> > move_ptes(vma, old_pmd, old_addr, old_addr + extent, new_vma,
>> >
>>
>> Hello Wei,
>>
>> Starting with next-20200122, I'm seeing the following in KMSG on NVIDIA
>> Tegra (ARM32):
>>
>> BUG: Bad rss-counter state mm:(ptrval) type:MM_ANONPAGES val:190
>>
>> and eventually kernel hangs.
>>
>> Git's bisection points to this patch and reverting it helps. Please fix,
>> thanks in advance.
>
>The above is definitely wrong - pXX_addr_end() are designed to be used
>with an address index within the pXX table table and the address index
>of either the last entry in the same pXX table or the beginning of the
>_next_ pXX table. Arbitary end address indicies are not allowed.
>
#define pmd_addr_end(addr, end) \
({ unsigned long __boundary = ((addr) + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK; \
(__boundary - 1 < (end) - 1)? __boundary: (end); \
})
If my understanding is correct, the definition here align the addr to next PMD
boundary or end.
I don't see the possibility to across another PMD. Do I miss something?
>When page tables are "rolled up" when levels don't exist, it is common
>practice for these macros to just return their end address index.
>Hence, if they are used with arbitary end address indicies, then the
>iteration will fail.
>
>The only way to do this is:
>
> next = pmd_addr_end(old_addr,
> pud_addr_end(old_addr,
> p4d_addr_end(old_addr,
> pgd_addr_end(old_addr, old_end))));
>
>which gives pmd_addr_end() (and each of the intermediate pXX_addr_end())
>the correct end argument. However, that's a more complex and verbose,
>and likely less efficient than the current code.
>
>I'd suggest that there's nothing to "fix" in the v5.5 code wrt this,
>and trying to "clean it up" will just result in less efficient or
>broken code.
>
>--
>RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
>FTTC broadband for 0.8mile line in suburbia: sync at 12.1Mbps down 622kbps up
>According to speedtest.net: 11.9Mbps down 500kbps up
--
Wei Yang
Help you, Help me
