Re: [PATCH 03/11] mm: page_vma_mapped_walk(): use pmd_read_atomic()
From: Kirill A. Shutemov
Date: Thu Jun 10 2021 - 05:06:08 EST
On Wed, Jun 09, 2021 at 11:38:11PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> page_vma_mapped_walk() cleanup: use pmd_read_atomic() with barrier()
> instead of READ_ONCE() for pmde: some architectures (e.g. i386 with PAE)
> have a multi-word pmd entry, for which READ_ONCE() is not good enough.
> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> mm/page_vma_mapped.c | 5 ++++-
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> diff --git a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> index 7c0504641fb8..973c3c4e72cc 100644
> --- a/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> +++ b/mm/page_vma_mapped.c
> @@ -182,13 +182,16 @@ bool page_vma_mapped_walk(struct page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw)
> pud = pud_offset(p4d, pvmw->address);
> if (!pud_present(*pud))
> return false;
> pvmw->pmd = pmd_offset(pud, pvmw->address);
> * Make sure the pmd value isn't cached in a register by the
> * compiler and used as a stale value after we've observed a
> * subsequent update.
> - pmde = READ_ONCE(*pvmw->pmd);
> + pmde = pmd_read_atomic(pvmw->pmd);
> + barrier();
Hm. It makes me wounder if barrier() has to be part of pmd_read_atomic().
mm/hmm.c uses the same pattern as you are and I tend to think that the
rest of pmd_read_atomic() users may be broken.
Am I wrong?
Kirill A. Shutemov