Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] mm/shmem: Unconditionally set pte dirty in mfill_atomic_install_pte
From: David Hildenbrand
Date: Fri Sep 03 2021 - 16:03:16 EST
On 03.09.21 22:00, Peter Xu wrote:
On Fri, Sep 03, 2021 at 09:42:34AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 02.09.21 22:17, Peter Xu wrote:
It was conditionally done previously, as there's one shmem special case that we
use SetPageDirty() instead. However that's not necessary and it should be
easier and cleaner to do it unconditionally in mfill_atomic_install_pte().
The most recent discussion about this is here, where Hugh explained the history
of SetPageDirty() and why it's possible that it's not required at all:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/alpine.LSU.2.11.2104121657050.1097@eggly.anvils/
Currently mfill_atomic_install_pte() has three callers:
1. shmem_mfill_atomic_pte
2. mcopy_atomic_pte
3. mcontinue_atomic_pte
After the change: case (1) should have its SetPageDirty replaced by the dirty
bit on pte (so we unify them together, finally), case (2) should have no
functional change at all as it has page_in_cache==false, case (3) may add a
dirty bit to the pte. However since case (3) is UFFDIO_CONTINUE for shmem,
it's merely 100% sure the page is dirty after all, so should not make a real
difference either.
Would it be worth adding VM_BUG_ON() to make sure that "100%" is really the
case?
I won't be able to make it 100% sure (and that's where I put it "merely"). The
example discussed between Axel and me in the other thread could be an outlier
(when two processes, uffd target, and uffd minor resolver, map the region as
RO), it's just that neither do I think that's a great matter, nor do I think it
would be worth a BUG_ON(), not to mention we use BUG_ON so carefully.
Agreed then, if we really expect there are corner cases and that the
corner cases are fine!
(VM_BUG_ON() could have helped to catch these while testing)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb