Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Sun, 25 Mar 2018 14:50:15 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>
To:     Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
cc:     paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, kirill@shutemov.name,
        ak@linux.intel.com, mhocko@kernel.org, dave@stgolabs.net,
        jack@suse.cz, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        benh@kernel.crashing.org, mpe@ellerman.id.au, paulus@samba.org,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, hpa@zytor.com,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail.com>,
        kemi.wang@intel.com, sergey.senozhatsky.work@gmail.com,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        haren@linux.vnet.ibm.com, khandual@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
        npiggin@gmail.com, bsingharora@gmail.com,
        Tim Chen <tim.c.chen@linux.intel.com>,
        linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 05/24] mm: Introduce pte_spinlock for
 FAULT_FLAG_SPECULATIVE
In-Reply-To: <1520963994-28477-6-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1803251446180.80485@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
References: <1520963994-28477-1-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1520963994-28477-6-git-send-email-ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 13 Mar 2018, Laurent Dufour wrote:

> When handling page fault without holding the mmap_sem the fetch of the
> pte lock pointer and the locking will have to be done while ensuring
> that the VMA is not touched in our back.
> 
> So move the fetch and locking operations in a dedicated function.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> ---
>  mm/memory.c | 15 +++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 8ac241b9f370..21b1212a0892 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2288,6 +2288,13 @@ int apply_to_page_range(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
>  }
>  EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(apply_to_page_range);
>  
> +static bool pte_spinlock(struct vm_fault *vmf)

inline?

> +{
> +	vmf->ptl = pte_lockptr(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
> +	spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
> +	return true;
> +}
> +
>  static bool pte_map_lock(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>  {
>  	vmf->pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd,

Shouldn't pte_unmap_same() take struct vm_fault * and use the new 
pte_spinlock()?