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