lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v6 03/23] mm: Check against orig_pte for finish_fault()
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 01:38:33PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 04:01:47PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > On Monday, 15 November 2021 6:55:02 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
> > > We used to check against none pte and in those cases orig_pte should always be
> > > none pte anyway.
> >
> > Is that always true? From what I can see in handle_pte_fault() orig_pte only
> > gets initialised in the !pmd_none() case so might not be pte_none.
>
> I believe it's true, otherwise I must have overlooked.
>
> IMHO it's not "when we set orig_pte" that matters - note that finish_fault()
> (that this patch modifies) is only called for file-backed memories, and it's
> only called in do_fault() where the pte is not mapped at all.
>
> DAX seems to call it too, but still DAX comes from do_fault() too, afaict.
>
> The pte will not be mapped in two cases in handle_pte_fault():
>
> - When pmd_none
>
> - When !pmd_none, however if we find that pte_none==true, that's:
>
> if (pte_none(vmf->orig_pte)) {
> pte_unmap(vmf->pte);
> vmf->pte = NULL;
> }
>
> So when we're already in do_fault(), afaict, orig_pte must be pte_none().
> Another side note is that, IIUC pte_none() is a looser check than the
> pte_val()==0 and it should be arch dependent.

So one more thing I forgot to mention... Of course above is based on the fact
that orig_pte will be initialized to zero when creating vmf structure, and
that's done in __handle_mm_fault():

struct vm_fault vmf = {
.vma = vma,
.address = address & PAGE_MASK,
.flags = flags,
.pgoff = linear_page_index(vma, address),
.gfp_mask = __get_fault_gfp_mask(vma),
};

I'm not sure whether I should explicitly set it to pte_val(0), in most C
programs we'll already assume it's a proper reset of orig_pte value in c99
initialization format, but if anyone thinks we should do that explicitly plus
some comments I can do that too.

>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > > This change prepares us to be able to call do_fault() on !none ptes. For
> > > example, we should allow that to happen for pte marker so that we can restore
> > > information out of the pte markers.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > mm/memory.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > > index 04662b010005..d5966d9e24c3 100644
> > > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > @@ -4052,7 +4052,7 @@ vm_fault_t finish_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
> > > ret = 0;
> > > /* Re-check under ptl */
> > > - if (likely(pte_none(*vmf->pte)))
> > > + if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte)))
> > > do_set_pte(vmf, page, vmf->address);
> > > else
> > > ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> --
> Peter Xu

--
Peter Xu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-12-16 06:52    [W:0.064 / U:0.368 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site