From: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@gmail.com>
To: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: pgtable: Ensure pml spinlock gets unlock
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2025 16:20:37 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Z6m21Rzv6H16oG-U@vaxr-BM6660-BM6360> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b70f663f-5b72-41dd-bae4-14808a87f262@bytedance.com>
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 12:05:05PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>
>
> On 2025/2/9 02:49, I Hsin Cheng wrote:
> > When !start_pte is true, the "pml" spinlock is still being holded and
> > the branch "out_pte" is taken. If "ptl" is equal to "pml", the lock
> > "pml" will still be locked when the function returns.
>
> No. When start_pte is NULL, the ptl must also be NULL, so the ptl and
> pml will not be equal.
>
> >
> > It'll be better to set a new branch "out_pte" and jump to it when
> > !start_pte is true at the first place, therefore no additional check for
> > "start_pte" or "ptl != pml" is needed, simply unlock "pml" and return.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > mm/pt_reclaim.c | 6 +++++-
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/pt_reclaim.c b/mm/pt_reclaim.c
> > index 7e9455a18aae..163e38f1728d 100644
> > --- a/mm/pt_reclaim.c
> > +++ b/mm/pt_reclaim.c
> > @@ -43,7 +43,7 @@ void try_to_free_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > pml = pmd_lock(mm, pmd);
> > start_pte = pte_offset_map_rw_nolock(mm, pmd, addr, &pmdval, &ptl);
> > if (!start_pte)
> > - goto out_ptl;
> > + goto out_pte;
> > if (ptl != pml)
> > spin_lock_nested(ptl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> > @@ -68,4 +68,8 @@ void try_to_free_pte(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> > pte_unmap_unlock(start_pte, ptl);
> > if (ptl != pml)
> > spin_unlock(pml);
> > + return;
> > +
> > +out_pte:
> > + spin_unlock(pml);
> > }
Hi Qi,
Thanks for your kindly review!
> No. When start_pte is NULL, the ptl must also be NULL, so the ptl and
> pml will not be equal.
Since this is the case, we don't have to do any addtional check for
"start_pte" and "ptl != pml", we can be sure that only the second check
will be true so we can unlock "pml" without the redundant check, that's
my understanding, what do you think?
Best regards,
I Hsin Cheng
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-02-10 8:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-02-08 18:49 I Hsin Cheng
2025-02-10 4:05 ` Qi Zheng
2025-02-10 8:20 ` I Hsin Cheng [this message]
2025-02-10 8:31 ` Qi Zheng
2025-02-10 8:42 ` Qi Zheng
2025-02-10 8:59 ` I Hsin Cheng
2025-02-10 10:12 ` I Hsin Cheng
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=Z6m21Rzv6H16oG-U@vaxr-BM6660-BM6360 \
--to=richard120310@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com \
/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