Re: [PATCH 28/83] mm: Change timing of notification to IOMMUs about a page to be invalidated

[Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>]

On Fri, 11 Jul 2014, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 12:53:26AM +0300, Oded Gabbay wrote:
> >  mm/rmap.c | 8 ++++++--
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
> > index 196cd0c..73d4c3d 100644
> > --- a/mm/rmap.c
> > +++ b/mm/rmap.c
> > @@ -1231,13 +1231,17 @@ static int try_to_unmap_one(struct page *page, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >  	} else
> >  		dec_mm_counter(mm, MM_FILEPAGES);
> >  
> > +	pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
> > +
> > +	mmu_notifier_invalidate_page(vma, address, event);
> > +
> >  	page_remove_rmap(page);
> >  	page_cache_release(page);
> >  
> > +	return ret;
> > +
> >  out_unmap:
> >  	pte_unmap_unlock(pte, ptl);
> > -	if (ret != SWAP_FAIL && !(flags & TTU_MUNLOCK))
> > -		mmu_notifier_invalidate_page(vma, address, event);
> >  out:
> >  	return ret;
> 
> I think there is no bug. In that function the page is just unmapped,
> removed from the rmap (page_remove_rmap), and the LRU list
> (page_cache_release). The page itself is not released in this function,
> so the call mmu_notifier_invalidate_page() at the end is fine.

Agreed, nothing to fix here: the try_to_unmap() callers must hold
their own reference to the page.  If they did not, how could they
be sure that this is a page which is appropriate to unmap?

(Nit: we don't actually take a separate reference for the LRU list:
the page_cache_release above corresponds to the reference in the
pte which has just been removed.)

Hugh

--
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>