Re: [PATCH 19/25] mm/s390: Use mm_fault_accounting()

[Peter Xu]

Hi, Alexander,

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 05:59:33PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > @@ -489,21 +489,7 @@ static inline vm_fault_t do_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int access)
> >  	if (unlikely(fault & VM_FAULT_ERROR))
> >  		goto out_up;
> > 
> > -	/*
> > -	 * Major/minor page fault accounting is only done on the
> > -	 * initial attempt. If we go through a retry, it is extremely
> > -	 * likely that the page will be found in page cache at that point.
> > -	 */
> >  	if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY) {
> > -		if (fault & VM_FAULT_MAJOR) {
> > -			tsk->maj_flt++;
> > -			perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS_MAJ, 1,
> > -				      regs, address);
> > -		} else {
> > -			tsk->min_flt++;
> > -			perf_sw_event(PERF_COUNT_SW_PAGE_FAULTS_MIN, 1,
> > -				      regs, address);
> > -		}
> >  		if (fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY) {
> >  			if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PGSTE) && gmap &&
> >  			    (flags & FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT)) {
> 
> Seems like the call to mm_fault_accounting() will be missed if
> we entered here with FAULT_FLAG_RETRY_NOWAIT flag set, since it
> jumps to "out_up"...

This is true as a functional change.  However that also means that we've got a
VM_FAULT_RETRY, which hints that this fault has been requested to retry rather
than handled correctly (for instance, due to some try_lock failed during the
fault process).

To me, that case should not be counted as a page fault at all?  Or we might get
the same duplicated accounting when the page fault retried from a higher stack.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu