Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] fs/proc/task_mmu: don't indicate PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE without PM_PRESENT

[David Hildenbrand]

On 10.06.24 06:49, Oscar Salvador wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 02:23:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > Relying on the mapcount for non-present PTEs that reference pages
> > doesn't make any sense: they are not accounted in the mapcount, so
> > page_mapcount() == 1 won't return the result we actually want to know.
> >
> > While we don't check the mapcount for migration entries already, we
> > could end up checking it for swap, hwpoison, device exclusive, ...
> > entries, which we really shouldn't.
> >
> > There is one exception: device private entries, which we consider
> > fake-present (e.g., incremented the mapcount). But we won't care about
> > that for now for PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE, because indicating PM_SWAP for them
> > although they are fake-present already sounds suspiciously wrong.
> >
> > Let's never indicate PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE without PM_PRESENT.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Forgot to comment on something:
>
> > @@ -1517,14 +1514,13 @@ static int pagemap_pmd_range(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> >   			if (pmd_swp_uffd_wp(pmd))
> >   				flags |= PM_UFFD_WP;
> >   			VM_BUG_ON(!is_pmd_migration_entry(pmd));
> > -			migration = is_migration_entry(entry);
> >   			page = pfn_swap_entry_to_page(entry);
>
> We do not really need to get the page anymore here as that is the non-present
> part.
>
> Then we could get away without checking the flags as only page != NULL
> would mean a present pmd.
>
> Not that we gain much as this is far from being a hot-path, but just
> saying..

I *think* we still want that for indicating PM_FILE after patch #1.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb