lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Sep]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] mm/thp: Split huge pmds/puds if they're pinned when fork()
From
Date
On 9/22/20 3:33 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 21-09-20 23:41:16, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 9/21/20 2:20 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
>> ...
>>> + if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(src_mm->has_pinned) &&
>>> + page_maybe_dma_pinned(src_page))) {
>>
>> This condition would make a good static inline function. It's used in 3
>> places, and the condition is quite special and worth documenting, and
>> having a separate function helps with that, because the function name
>> adds to the story. I'd suggest approximately:
>>
>> page_likely_dma_pinned()
>>
>> for the name.
>
> Well, but we should also capture that this really only works for anonymous
> pages. For file pages mm->has_pinned does not work because the page may be
> still pinned by completely unrelated process as Jann already properly
> pointed out earlier in the thread. So maybe anon_page_likely_pinned()?
> Possibly also assert PageAnon(page) in it if we want to be paranoid...
>
> Honza

The file-backed case doesn't really change anything, though:
page_maybe_dma_pinned() is already a "fuzzy yes" in the same sense: you
can get a false positive. Just like here, with an mm->has_pinned that
could be a false positive for a process.

And for that reason, I'm also not sure an "assert PageAnon(page)" is
desirable. That assertion would prevent file-backed callers from being
able to call a function that provides a fuzzy answer, but I don't see
why you'd want or need to do that. The goal here is to make the fuzzy
answer a little bit more definite, but it's not "broken" just because
the result is still fuzzy, right?

Apologies if I'm missing a huge point here... :)


thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-09-22 22:02    [W:0.189 / U:1.164 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site