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: <20200923170759.GA9916@ziepe.ca> <20200924143517.GD79898@xz-x1>
 <20200924165152.GE9916@ziepe.ca> <20200924175531.GH79898@xz-x1>
 <20200924181501.GF9916@ziepe.ca> <20200924183418.GJ79898@xz-x1>
 <20200924183953.GG9916@ziepe.ca> <20200924213010.GL79898@xz-x1>
 <CAHk-=wgz5SXKA6-uZ_BimOP1C7pHJag0ndz=tnJDAZS_Z+FrGQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHk-=whDSH_MRMt80JaSwoquzt=1nQ-0n3w0aVngoWPAc10BCw@mail.gmail.com> <20200926004136.GJ9916@ziepe.ca>
In-Reply-To: <20200926004136.GJ9916@ziepe.ca>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Fri, 25 Sep 2020 18:15:37 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wiutA_J-OfvrD8Kp3SoYcfMHUwsU7ViOH48q7QN0AQ6eg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mm: Introduce mm_struct.has_pinned
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
Cc:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 5:41 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca> wrote:
>
> I don't completely grok the consequences of the anon_vma check. We
> can exclude file backed mappings as they are broken for pinning
> anyhow, so what is left that could be MAP_PRIVATE of a non-anon_vma?

It really shouldn't ever happen.

The only way a COW vma can have a NULL anon_vma should be if it has no
pages mapped at all.

Technically I think it could happen if you only ever mapped the
special zero page in there (but that shouldn't then get to the
"vm_normal_page()").

> Otherwise, I do prefer Peter's version because of the GFP_KERNEL. To
> touch on your other email..

Yeah, no, I just hadn't seen a new version, so I started getting antsy
and that's when I decided to see what a minimal patch looks like.

I think that over the weekend I'll do Peter's version but with the
"page_mapcount() == 1"  check, because I'm starting to like that
better than the mm->has_pinned.

Comments on that plan?

              Linus