From: Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: Remove use of ALLOW_RETRY when RETRY_NOWAIT is set
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2011 02:38:20 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANN689E0ckbGBZZfk-BMdyR=_E6eN2oQb5uhij3ARPVCicqGrQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20110628165302.706740714@goodmis.org>
On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 9:47 AM, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org> wrote:
> From: Steven Rostedt <srostedt@redhat.com>
>
> The only user of FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT also sets the
> FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY flag. This makes the check in the
> __lock_page_or_retry redundant as it checks the RETRY_NOWAIT
> just after checking ALLOW_RETRY and then returns if it is
> set. The FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY does not make any other
> difference in this path.
>
> Setting both and then ignoring one is quite confusing,
> especially since this code has very subtle locking issues
> when it comes to the mmap_sem.
>
> Only set the RETRY_WAIT flag and have that do the necessary
> work instead of confusing reviewers of this code by setting
> ALLOW_RETRY and not releasing the mmap_sem.
>
> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> @@ -151,8 +151,8 @@ extern pgprot_t protection_map[16];
> #define FAULT_FLAG_WRITE 0x01 /* Fault was a write access */
> #define FAULT_FLAG_NONLINEAR 0x02 /* Fault was via a nonlinear mapping */
> #define FAULT_FLAG_MKWRITE 0x04 /* Fault was mkwrite of existing pte */
> -#define FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY 0x08 /* Retry fault if blocking */
> -#define FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT 0x10 /* Don't drop mmap_sem and wait when retrying */
> +#define FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY 0x08 /* Retry fault if blocking (drops mmap_sem) */
> +#define FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT 0x10 /* Wait when retrying (don't drop mmap_sem) */
You want to say "DONT wait when retrying" here...
Also - you argued higher up that having both flags set at once is
confusing, but I find it equally confusing to pass a flag to specify
you don't want to wait on retry if the flag that allows retry is not
set. I think the confusion comes from the way the nowait semantics got
bolted on the retry code for virtualization, even though (if I
understand the virtualization use case correctly) they dont actually
want to retry there, they just want to give up without blocking.
Would the following proposal make more sense to you ?
FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_ASYNC: allow returning a VM_FAULT_ASYNC error code if
the page can't be obtained immediately (major fault).
FAULT_FLAG_ASYNC_WAIT: before returning VM_FAULT_ASYNC, drop the
mmap_sem and wait for major fault to complete.
existing uses of FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY | FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT
become FAULT_FLAG_ASYNC
existing uses of FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY alone become FAULT_FLAG_ASYNC
| FAULT_FLAG_ASYNC_WAIT
existing uses of VM_FAULT_RETRY become VM_FAULT_ASYNC
This may also help your documentation proposal since the flags would
now work together rather than having one be an exception to the other.
--
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.
--
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/ .
Fight unfair telecom internet charges in Canada: sign http://stopthemeter.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-06-29 9:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-06-28 16:47 [PATCH 0/2] mm: Clean up and document fault and RETRY mmap_sem Steven Rostedt
2011-06-28 16:47 ` [PATCH 1/2] mm: Remove use of ALLOW_RETRY when RETRY_NOWAIT is set Steven Rostedt
2011-06-29 9:38 ` Michel Lespinasse [this message]
2011-06-29 12:43 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-06-28 16:47 ` [PATCH 2/2] mm: Document handle_mm_fault() Steven Rostedt
2011-06-28 16:59 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-06-28 17:02 ` Linus Torvalds
2011-06-28 17:22 ` Steven Rostedt
2011-06-28 17:09 ` Gleb Natapov
2011-06-28 17:16 ` Steven Rostedt
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='CANN689E0ckbGBZZfk-BMdyR=_E6eN2oQb5uhij3ARPVCicqGrQ@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=walken@google.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avi@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.com \
--cc=rmk+kernel@arm.linux.org.uk \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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