From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, stable <stable@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH resend] mm/gup: fix try_grab_compound_head() race with split_huge_page()
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 17:38:18 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ad8601a0-f520-9986-1a6c-2852e2e1d3c2@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAG48ez3Vb1BxaZ0EHhR9ctkjCCygMWOQqFMGqt-=Ea2yXrvKiw@mail.gmail.com>
On 6/13/21 9:47 PM, Jann Horn wrote:
...
>> The VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE() is not implemented exactly right
>> in the !CONFIG_DEBUG_VM case. IMHO it should follow the WARN*()
>> behavior, and return the original condition and keep going
>> in that case.
>
> But the point of the existing definition is that the compiler can
> avoid generating code for the condition in !DEBUG_VM builds, even if
> it can't prove that the condition is free of side effects, right? If
> VM_WARN_ON_ONCE_PAGE() was changed as you propose, then I think that
> in mem_cgroup_page_lruvec(), the compiler would have to generate code
> for mem_cgroup_disabled(), which calls static_branch_likely(), which
> ends up in "asm volatile" statements; so the compiler probably won't
> be able to eliminate the condition.
>
>> Then you could use it directly here.
>
> Depending on whether the intended behavior here is to skip the check
> in !DEBUG_VM builds (which was the case before) or also perform the
> check in DEBUG_VM builds. And if DEBUG_VM is a config option because
> it might have some performance impact, isn't the cost of the check
> probably quite large compared to the cost of printing the warning on a
> codpath that should never execute?
>
That's true for these VM_WARN*() macros, but not true for the more widely
used WARN*() macros. And I was hoping to bring VM macros closer to the
WARN macros. But as you point out, pre-existing callers expect to have
zero impact in !DEBUG_VM builds, and so some caution is required.
I feel like a separate set of macros would be reasonable. Something that
has WARN*() type of behavior, and accepts a struct page (which typically
means that WARN_ON_ONCE is required, because for pages you have to limit
it to that pretty much always).
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-15 0:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-11 16:15 Jann Horn
2021-06-11 22:36 ` Andrew Morton
2021-06-12 1:49 ` Jann Horn
2021-06-12 10:17 ` John Hubbard
2021-06-14 4:47 ` Jann Horn
2021-06-15 0:38 ` John Hubbard [this message]
2021-06-14 13:10 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
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=ad8601a0-f520-9986-1a6c-2852e2e1d3c2@nvidia.com \
--to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jannh@google.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.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