Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce mm_struct.has_pinned

[Leon Romanovsky]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:50:03PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 12:36 PM Linus Torvalds
> <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > So I'll do the pte wrprotect/restore removal. Anybody willing to do
> > and test the sequence count approach?
>
> So the wrprotect removal is trivial, with most of it being about the comments.
>
> However, when I look at this, I am - once again - tempted to just add a
>
>         if (__page_mapcount(page) > 1)
>                 return 1;
>
> there too. Because we know it's a private mapping (shared mappings we
> checked for with the "is_cow_mapping()" earlier), and the only case we
> really care about is the one where the page is only mapped in the
> current mm (because that's what a write pinning will have done, and as
> mentioned, a read pinning doesn't do anything wrt fork() right now
> anyway).
>
> So if it's mapped in another mm, the COW clearly hasn't been broken by
> a pin, and a read pinned page had already gone through a fork.
>
> But the more I look at this code, the more I go "ok, I want somebody
> to actually test this with the rdma case".
>
> So I'll attach my suggested patch, but I won't actually commit it. I'd
> really like to have this tested, possibly _together_ with the sequence
> count addition..

Hi Linus,

We tested the suggested patch for last two weeks in our nightly regressions
and didn't experience any new failures. It looks like it is safe to use
it, but better to take the patch during/after merge window to minimize risk
of delaying v5.9.

Thanks

>
>                Linus