From: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] userfaultfd: fs/userfaultfd.c add more comments
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 21:13:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1432149239-21760-3-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432149239-21760-1-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com>
Add more commentary.
Signed-off-by: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
---
fs/userfaultfd.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
index f601f27..a519f74 100644
--- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
@@ -86,7 +86,20 @@ static int userfaultfd_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wq, unsigned mode,
goto out;
ret = wake_up_state(wq->private, mode);
if (ret)
- /* wake only once, autoremove behavior */
+ /*
+ * Wake only once, autoremove behavior.
+ *
+ * After the effect of list_del_init is visible to the
+ * other CPUs, the waitqueue may disappear from under
+ * us, see the !list_empty_careful() in
+ * handle_userfault(). try_to_wake_up() has an
+ * implicit smp_mb__before_spinlock, and the
+ * wq->private is read before calling the extern
+ * function "wake_up_state" (which in turns calls
+ * try_to_wake_up). While the spin_lock;spin_unlock;
+ * wouldn't be enough, the smp_mb__before_spinlock is
+ * enough to avoid an explicit smp_mb() here.
+ */
list_del_init(&wq->task_list);
out:
return ret;
@@ -511,6 +524,19 @@ static ssize_t userfaultfd_ctx_read(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, int no_wait,
* Refile this userfault from
* fault_pending_wqh to fault_wqh, it's not
* pending anymore after we read it.
+ *
+ * Use list_del() by hand (as
+ * userfaultfd_wake_function also uses
+ * list_del_init() by hand) to be sure nobody
+ * changes __remove_wait_queue() to use
+ * list_del_init() in turn breaking the
+ * !list_empty_careful() check in
+ * handle_userfault(). The uwq->wq.task_list
+ * must never be empty at any time during the
+ * refile, or the waitqueue could disappear
+ * from under us. The "wait_queue_head_t"
+ * parameter of __remove_wait_queue() is unused
+ * anyway.
*/
list_del(&uwq->wq.task_list);
__add_wait_queue(&ctx->fault_wqh, &uwq->wq);
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-20 19:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-20 19:13 [PATCH 0/2] userfaultfdv4.1 update for -mm Andrea Arcangeli
2015-05-20 19:13 ` [PATCH 1/2] userfaultfd: documentation update Andrea Arcangeli
2015-05-20 19:13 ` Andrea Arcangeli [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1432149239-21760-3-git-send-email-aarcange@redhat.com \
--to=aarcange@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox