linux-mm.kvack.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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




  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