lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Dec]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH mm-unstable] mm: move folio_set_compound_order() to mm/internal.h
From
On 12/16/22 2:56 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 12/16/22 14:27, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2022 13:20:53 -0800 Sidhartha Kumar
>> <sidhartha.kumar@oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> folio_set_compound_order() is moved to an mm-internal location so
>>> external
>>> folio users cannot misuse this function. Change the name of the function
>>> to folio_set_order() and use WARN_ON_ONCE() rather than BUG_ON. Also,
>>> handle the case if a non-large folio is passed and add clarifying
>>> comments
>>> to the function.
>>>
>>
>> This differs from the version I previously merged:
>>
>> ---
>> a/mm/internal.h~mm-move-folio_set_compound_order-to-mm-internalh-update
>> +++ a/mm/internal.h
>> @@ -384,8 +384,10 @@ int split_free_page(struct page *free_pa
>>    */
>>   static inline void folio_set_order(struct folio *folio, unsigned int
>> order)
>>   {
>> -    if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_large(folio)))
>> +    if (!folio_test_large(folio)) {
>> +        WARN_ON_ONCE(order);
>>           return;
>> +    }
>
> I think that's out of date?
>
> We eventually settled on the version that is (as of this a few minutes
> ago) already in mm-unstable (commit fdea060a130d: "mm: move
> folio_set_compound_order() to mm/internal.h"), which has it like this:
>
Hi Andrew, yes this version that is already in mm-unstable represents
the v2 of this patch which is what we agreed on. I think the patch
mm-move-folio_set_compound_order-to-mm-internalh-update with description
"alter the folio_set_order() warning" which was just added to
mm-unstable should be removed as our discussion lead us away from that
version.


>        if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!folio_test_large(folio)))
>                return;
>
>>       folio->_folio_order = order;
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_64BIT
>>
>> Makes sense.  But wouldn't
>>
>>     if (WARN_ON_ONCE(order && !folio_test_large(folio)))
>>
>> be clearer?
> That's a little narrower of a check. But maybe that's desirable. Could

Ya I think it would helpful to have a wider catch for the warn as any
user calling folio_set_order() with a non-large folio should be aware as
they could misuse the folio later on even if they passed in a 0 order
because order itself would be an OOB access.

Thanks,
Sidhartha Kumar
> someone (Mike, Muchun, Sidhartha) comment on which behavior is
> preferable, please? I think I'm a little dizzy at this point. :)
>
>
> thanks,

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-12-17 00:14    [W:0.348 / U:0.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site