On 09/22, Peter Xu wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 02:40:14PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 09/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > On 09/21, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > >
> > > > @@ -859,6 +989,25 @@ static int copy_pte_range(struct mm_struct
> > > > *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
> > > > spin_needbreak(src_ptl) ||
> > > > spin_needbreak(dst_ptl))
> > > > break;
> > > > }
> > > > +
> > > > + if (unlikely(data.cow_new_page)) {
> > > > + /*
> > > > + * If cow_new_page set, we must be at the 2nd
> > > > round of
> > > > + * a previous COPY_MM_BREAK_COW. Try to arm
> > > > the new
> > > > + * page now. Note that in all cases
> > > > page_break_cow()
> > > > + * will properly release the objects in
> > > > copy_mm_data.
> > > > + */
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(copy_ret != COPY_MM_BREAK_COW);
> > > > + if (pte_install_copied_page(dst_mm, new,
> > > > src_pte,
> > > > + dst_pte, addr, rss,
> > > > + &data)) {
> > > > + /* We installed the pte successfully;
> > > > move on */
> > > > + progress++;
> > > > + continue;
> > >
> > > I'm afraid I misread this patch too ;)
> > >
> > > But it seems to me in this case the main loop can really "leak"
> > > COPY_MM_BREAK_COW. Suppose the the next 31 pte's are pte_none() and
> > > need_resched() is true.
> > >
> > > No?
>
> I still think it's a no...
>
> Note that now we'll reset "progress" every time before the do loop, so we'll
> never reach need_resched() (since progress<32) before
> pte_install_copied_page()
> when needed.
Yes. But copy_ret is still COPY_MM_BREAK_COW after pte_install_copied_page().
Now suppose that the next 31 pte's are pte_none(), progress will be incremented
every time.
> I explicitly put the pte_install_copied_page() into the loop just...
...
> > progress = 0;
> > + if (unlikely(copy_ret == COPY_MM_BREAK_COW)) {
> > + /*
> > + * Note that in all cases pte_install_copied_page()
> > + * will properly release the objects in copy_mm_data.
> > + */
> > + copy_ret = COPY_MM_DONE;
> > + if (pte_install_copied_page(dst_mm, new, src_pte,
> > + dst_pte, addr, rss,
> > + &data)) {
> > + /* We installed the pte successfully; move on */
> > + progress++;
> > + goto next;
>
> ... to avoid jumps like this because I think it's really tricky. :)
To me it looks better before the main loop because we know that
data.cow_new_page != NULL is only possible at the 1st iterattion after
restart ;)
But I agree, this is subjective, please ignore. However, I still think
it is better to rely on the copy_ret == COPY_MM_BREAK_COW check rather
than data.cow_new_page != NULL.
> > case COPY_MM_SWAP_CONT:
> > if (add_swap_count_continuation(data.entry, GFP_KERNEL) < 0)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > - break;
> > + copy_ret = COPY_MM_DONE;
>
> Kind of a continuation of the discussion from previous patch - I think we'd
> better reset copy_ret not only for this case, but move it after the switch
> (just in case there'll be new ones). The new BREAK_COW uses goto so it's
> quite
> special.
>
> > + goto again;
>
> I feel like this could go wrong without the "addr != end" check later, when
> this is the last pte to check.
How? We know that copy_one_pte() failed and returned COPY_MM_SWAP_CONT
before addr = end.
And this matters "case COPY_MM_BREAK_COW" below which does "goto again"
without the "addr != end" check.
Oleg.
