[PATCH v5 05/22] mm: Introduce pte_spinlock for FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE

[Laurent Dufour]

When handling page fault without holding the mmap_sem the fetch of the
pte lock pointer and the locking will have to be done while ensuring
that the VMA is not touched in our back.

So move the fetch and locking operations in a dedicated function.

Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
 mm/memory.c | 15 +++++++++++----
 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 65859e123b16..0fd72b19c730 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -2451,6 +2451,13 @@ static inline void wp_page_reuse(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 	pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
 }
 
+static bool pte_spinlock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
+{
+	vmf->ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
+	spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
+	return true;
+}
+
 static bool pte_map_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 {
 	vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd, vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
@@ -3788,8 +3795,8 @@ static int do_numa_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 	 * validation through pte_unmap_same(). It's of NUMA type but
 	 * the pfn may be screwed if the read is non atomic.
 	 */
-	vmf->ptl = pte_lockptr(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
-	spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
+	if (!pte_spinlock(vmf))
+		return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
 	if (unlikely(!pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))) {
 		pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
 		goto out;
@@ -3981,8 +3988,8 @@ static int handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
 	if (pte_protnone(vmf->orig_pte) && vma_is_accessible(vmf->vma))
 		return do_numa_page(vmf);
 
-	vmf->ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
-	spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
+	if (!pte_spinlock(vmf))
+		return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
 	entry = vmf->orig_pte;
 	if (unlikely(!pte_same(*vmf->pte, entry)))
 		goto unlock;
-- 
2.7.4