Re: [PATCH 3/5] mm: Rework return value for copy_one_pte()

[Peter Xu]

On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 12:18:16PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 09/22, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > On 09/21, Peter Xu wrote:
> > >
> > > @@ -866,13 +877,18 @@ static int copy_pte_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
> > >  	pte_unmap_unlock(orig_dst_pte, dst_ptl);
> > >  	cond_resched();
> > >
> > > -	if (entry.val) {
> > > -		if (add_swap_count_continuation(entry, GFP_KERNEL) < 0)
> > > +	switch (copy_ret) {
> > > +	case COPY_MM_SWAP_CONT:
> > > +		if (add_swap_count_continuation(data.entry, GFP_KERNEL) < 0)
> > >  			return -ENOMEM;
> > > -		progress = 0;
> > > +		break;
> >
> > Note that you didn't clear copy_ret, it is still COPY_MM_SWAP_CONT,
> >
> > > +	default:
> > > +		break;
> > >  	}
> > > +
> > >  	if (addr != end)
> > >  		goto again;
> >
> > After that the main loop can stop again because of need_resched(), and
> > in this case add_swap_count_continuation(data.entry) will be called again?
> 
> No, this is not possible, copy_one_pte() should be called at least once,
> progress = 0 before restart. Sorry for noise.

Oh wait, I think you're right... when we get a COPY_MM_SWAP_CONT, goto "again",
then if there're 32 pte_none() ptes _plus_ an need_resched(), then we might
reach again at the same add_swap_count_continuation() with the same swp entry.

However since I didn't change this logic in this patch, it probably means this
bug is also in the original code before this series...  I'm thinking maybe I
should prepare a standalone patch to clear the swp_entry_t and cc stable.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu