Re: [PATCH] PageCompound avoid page[1].mapping

[Andrew Morton]

Hugh Dickins <hugh@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> If a compound page has its own put_page_testzero destructor (the only
> current example is free_huge_page), that is noted in page[1].mapping of
> the compound page.  But David Gibson's recent fix to access_process_vm
> shows that to be rather a poor place to keep it: functions which call
> set_page_dirty(_lock) after get_user_pages ought to check !PageCompound
> first, otherwise set_page_dirty may crash on what's not the address of
> a struct address_space; but Infiniband for one is unaware of this issue.
> 
> Even if we fixed all callers, or set_page_dirty(_lock) itself, it would
> still be unsatisfactory: e.g. get_user_pages calls flush_dcache_page,
> which involves page->mapping on some architectures - not a problem while
> hugetlb goes its own way in get_user_pages, but needs a test if another
> compound page destructor were added.  page->mapping is used too widely
> to be a safe field to reuse in this way.
> 
> The safest field to reuse, given how PageCompound redirects callers to
> the page count of the first page, is actually the _count field of the
> second page: save order (only used for debug) there, and move destructor
> address from mapping to index.  Add __page_count inline for internal
> debug use - to avoid reliance on page_private when page is in doubt.
> 
> Revert David's mod to access_process_vm, no longer required.  But leave
> the PageCompound tests in fs/bio.c and fs/direct-io.c: perhaps those are
> worthwhile optimizations when working on hugetlb areas.
> 
> ...
> -	page[1].mapping = (void *)free_huge_page;
> +	page[1].index = (unsigned long)free_huge_page;	/* set dtor */

This is a little awkward, IMO.  page.index is actually pgoff_t, not
unsigned long.  Conceivably someday someone may want to make pgoff_t 64-bit
on 32-bit machines, for example.  Yes, that'll still work, but it's still
awkward.

Is it not possible to put the dtor address into some address-type field
within the pageframe rather than into an integer-type?

Or just leave it using page.mapping?  Anyone who uses page.mapping of a
tail page in a compound page should go oops.

> +/*
> + * Ignore PageCompound when checking page_count for debugging -
> + * page_private might be corrupt; but never expose this to wider use.
> + */
> +static inline int __page_count(struct page *page)
> +{
> +	return atomic_read(&page->_count) + 1;
> +}

hm, spose so.  Nick has a patch which unskews page.count which will need
updating for this.

<checks>

Looks like I didn't apply Nick's patch yet - mm/ in -mm has a nutty amount
of stuff in it now.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/