lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/5] mm: Rework return value for copy_one_pte()
On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 08:23:18PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/22, Peter Xu wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 06:53:55PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > On 09/22, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 05:48:46PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > > > > However since I didn't change this logic in this patch, it probably means this
> > > > > > bug is also in the original code before this series... I'm thinking maybe I
> > > > > > should prepare a standalone patch to clear the swp_entry_t and cc stable.
> > > > >
> > > > > Well, if copy_one_pte(src_pte) hits a swap entry and returns entry.val != 0, then
> > > > > pte_none(*src_pte) is not possible after restart? This means that copy_one_pte()
> > > > > will be called at least once.
> > > >
> > > > Note that we've released the page table locks, so afaict the old swp entry can
> > > > be gone under us when we go back to the "do" loop... :)
> > >
> > > But how?
> > >
> > > I am just curious, I don't understand this code enough.
> >
> > Me neither.
> >
> > The point is I think we can't assume *src_pte will read the same if we have
> > released the src_ptl in copy_pte_range(),
>
> This is clear.
>
> But I still think that !pte_none() -> pte_none() transition is not possible
> under mmap_write_lock()...
>
> OK, let me repeat I don't understans these code paths enough, let me reword:
> I don't see how this transition is possible.

Though I guess I'll keep my wording, because I still think it's accurate to
me. :)

Can we e.g. punch a page hole without changing vmas?

--
Peter Xu

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-22 20:49    [W:0.094 / U:4.960 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site