Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200821234958.7896-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20200821234958.7896-4-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20200914142722.GA21906@redhat.com> <20200914175946.GC30881@xz-x1>
In-Reply-To: <20200914175946.GC30881@xz-x1>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Mon, 14 Sep 2020 12:03:34 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjpm129KBt42pQWHgvzH71=XcLvRmrUVoy2cnO8fVwfBA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] mm/gup: Remove enfornced COW mechanism
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
Cc:     Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Maya B . Gokhale" <gokhale2@llnl.gov>,
        Yang Shi <yang.shi@linux.alibaba.com>,
        Marty Mcfadden <mcfadden8@llnl.gov>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 10:59 AM Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> However now I'm a bit confused on why FOLL_COW must be with FOLL_FORCE even
> without the enforced COW... Shouldn't FOLL_COW be able to happen even without
> FOLL_FORCE (as long as when a page is shared, and the gup is with WRITE
> permission)?  Not sure what I've missed, though.

Afaik, the FOLL_FORCE test was (and is) unnecessary.

If FOLL_COW is set, we're going through this the second time, and we
either had that pte_write() or we had FOLL_FORCE originally.

So can_follow_write_pte() doesn't need the FOLL_FORCE test - it's
redundant - but it isn't technically wrong either.

                 Linus