lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Mar]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 05/24] mm: Introduce pte_spinlock for FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE
From
Date
On 25/03/2018 23:50, David Rientjes wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:
>
>> When handling page fault without holding the mmap_sem the fetch of the
>> pte lock pointer and the locking will have to be done while ensuring
>> that the VMA is not touched in our back.
>>
>> So move the fetch and locking operations in a dedicated function.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> mm/memory.c | 15 +++++++++++----
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> index 8ac241b9f370..21b1212a0892 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> @@ -2288,6 +2288,13 @@ int apply_to_page_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(apply_to_page_range);
>>
>> +static bool pte_spinlock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>
> inline?

You're right.
Indeed this was done in the patch 18 : "mm: Provide speculative fault
infrastructure", but this has to be done there too, I'll fix that.

>
>> +{
>> + vmf->ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
>> + spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
>> + return true;
>> +}
>> +
>> static bool pte_map_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>> {
>> vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,
>
> Shouldn't pte_unmap_same() take struct vm_fault * and use the new
> pte_spinlock()?

done in the next patch, but you already acked it..

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-03-28 10:16    [W:0.082 / U:0.988 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site