Alistair Popple
2021-May-24 13:27 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH v9 06/10] mm/memory.c: Allow different return codes for copy_nonpresent_pte()
Currently if copy_nonpresent_pte() returns a non-zero value it is assumed to be a swap entry which requires further processing outside the loop in copy_pte_range() after dropping locks. This prevents other values being returned to signal conditions such as failure which a subsequent change requires. Instead make copy_nonpresent_pte() return an error code if further processing is required and read the value for the swap entry in the main loop under the ptl. Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple <apopple at nvidia.com> --- v9: New for v9 to allow device exclusive handling to occur in copy_nonpresent_pte(). --- mm/memory.c | 12 +++++++----- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c index 2fb455c365c2..e061cfa18c11 100644 --- a/mm/memory.c +++ b/mm/memory.c @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ copy_nonpresent_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm, if (likely(!non_swap_entry(entry))) { if (swap_duplicate(entry) < 0) - return entry.val; + return -EAGAIN; /* make sure dst_mm is on swapoff's mmlist. */ if (unlikely(list_empty(&dst_mm->mmlist))) { @@ -974,11 +974,13 @@ copy_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma, struct vm_area_struct *src_vma, continue; } if (unlikely(!pte_present(*src_pte))) { - entry.val = copy_nonpresent_pte(dst_mm, src_mm, - dst_pte, src_pte, - src_vma, addr, rss); - if (entry.val) + ret = copy_nonpresent_pte(dst_mm, src_mm, + dst_pte, src_pte, + src_vma, addr, rss); + if (ret == -EAGAIN) { + entry = pte_to_swp_entry(*src_pte); break; + } progress += 8; continue; } -- 2.20.1
Peter Xu
2021-May-26 19:50 UTC
[Nouveau] [PATCH v9 06/10] mm/memory.c: Allow different return codes for copy_nonpresent_pte()
On Mon, May 24, 2021 at 11:27:21PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:> Currently if copy_nonpresent_pte() returns a non-zero value it is > assumed to be a swap entry which requires further processing outside the > loop in copy_pte_range() after dropping locks. This prevents other > values being returned to signal conditions such as failure which a > subsequent change requires. > > Instead make copy_nonpresent_pte() return an error code if further > processing is required and read the value for the swap entry in the main > loop under the ptl. > > Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple <apopple at nvidia.com> > > --- > > v9: > > New for v9 to allow device exclusive handling to occur in > copy_nonpresent_pte(). > --- > mm/memory.c | 12 +++++++----- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c > index 2fb455c365c2..e061cfa18c11 100644 > --- a/mm/memory.c > +++ b/mm/memory.c > @@ -718,7 +718,7 @@ copy_nonpresent_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm, > > if (likely(!non_swap_entry(entry))) { > if (swap_duplicate(entry) < 0) > - return entry.val; > + return -EAGAIN; > > /* make sure dst_mm is on swapoff's mmlist. */ > if (unlikely(list_empty(&dst_mm->mmlist))) { > @@ -974,11 +974,13 @@ copy_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma, struct vm_area_struct *src_vma, > continue; > } > if (unlikely(!pte_present(*src_pte))) { > - entry.val = copy_nonpresent_pte(dst_mm, src_mm, > - dst_pte, src_pte, > - src_vma, addr, rss); > - if (entry.val) > + ret = copy_nonpresent_pte(dst_mm, src_mm, > + dst_pte, src_pte, > + src_vma, addr, rss); > + if (ret == -EAGAIN) { > + entry = pte_to_swp_entry(*src_pte); > break; > + } > progress += 8; > continue; > }Note that -EAGAIN was previously used by copy_present_page() for early cow use. Here later although we check entry.val first: if (entry.val) { if (add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_KERNEL) < 0) { ret = -ENOMEM; goto out; } entry.val = 0; } else if (ret) { WARN_ON_ONCE(ret != -EAGAIN); prealloc = page_copy_prealloc(src_mm, src_vma, addr); if (!prealloc) return -ENOMEM; /* We've captured and resolved the error. Reset, try again. */ ret = 0; } We didn't reset "ret" in entry.val case (maybe we should?). Then in the next round of "goto again" if "ret" is unluckily untouched, it could reach the 2nd if check, and I think it could cause an unexpected page_copy_prealloc(). -- Peter Xu