Re: [PATCH v4] mm: fix is_pinnable_page against on cma page

[John Hubbard]

On 5/11/22 15:37, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Yes. But one thing that is still unanswered, that I think you can
> > answer, is: even if the compiler *did* re-read the mt variable, what
> > problems could that cause? I claim "no problems", because there is
> > no combination of 0, _CMA, _ISOLATE, _CMA|ISOLATE that will cause
> > problems here.
>
> What scenario I am concerning with __READ_ONCE so compiler
> inlining get_pageblock_migratetype two times are
>
>          CPU 0                                                       CPU 1
>                                                                  alloc_contig_range
> is_pinnable_page                                                start_isolate_page_range
>                                                                    set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
>     if (get_pageeblock_migratetype(page) == MIGRATE_CMA)
>         so it's false
>                                                                  undo:
>                                                                    set_pageblock_migratetype(MIGRATE_CMA)
>       
>     if (get_pageeblock_migratetype(page) == MIGRATE_ISOLATE)
>         so it's false
>
> In the end, CMA memory would be pinned by CPU 0 process
> so CMA allocation keep failed until the process release the
> refcount.

OK, so the code checks the wrong item each time. But the code really
only needs to know "is either _CMA or _ISOLATE set?". And so you
can just sidestep the entire question by writing it like this:

int mt = get_pageblock_migratetype(page);

if (mt & (MIGRATE_ISOLATE | MIGRATE_CMA))
	return false;


...yes?

thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA