lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Jun]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [v3 PATCH 3/7] mm: khugepaged: remove the redundant anon vma check
On Mon, Jun 6, 2022 at 2:44 PM Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The hugepage_vma_check() already checked it, so remove the redundant
> check.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>
> ---
> mm/khugepaged.c | 3 ---
> 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/khugepaged.c b/mm/khugepaged.c
> index d0f8020164fc..7a5d1c1a1833 100644
> --- a/mm/khugepaged.c
> +++ b/mm/khugepaged.c
> @@ -966,9 +966,6 @@ static int hugepage_vma_revalidate(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
> return SCAN_ADDRESS_RANGE;
> if (!hugepage_vma_check(vma, vma->vm_flags))
> return SCAN_VMA_CHECK;
> - /* Anon VMA expected */
> - if (!vma->anon_vma || !vma_is_anonymous(vma))
> - return SCAN_VMA_CHECK;
> return 0;
> }
>
> --
> 2.26.3
>
>

So, I don't know if this is possible, but I wonder if there is a race here:

hugepage_vma_revalidate() is called in the anon path when mmap_lock
after dropped + reacquired, and we want to refind / revalidate the
vma, since it might have changed.

There is the possibility that the memory was unmapped, then remapped
as file or shmem. If so, hugepage_vma_check() could return true
without actually checking vma->anon_vma || !vma_is_anonymous(vma) -
and we probably do want to (re)validate that this is indeed still an
anon vma.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-06-10 01:25    [W:0.419 / U:5.748 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site