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;
Date:   Fri, 16 Oct 2020 15:15:31 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>
To:     osalvador@suse.de
Cc:     Shijie Luo <luoshijie1@huawei.com>, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linmiaohe@huawei.com, linfeilong@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: fix potential pte_unmap_unlock pte error
Message-ID: <20201016131531.GK22589@dhcp22.suse.cz>
References: <20201015121534.50910-1-luoshijie1@huawei.com>
 <20201016123137.GH22589@dhcp22.suse.cz>
 <f99d9457ae88f3692e57cce86d0e22e8@suse.de>
 <20201016131112.GJ22589@dhcp22.suse.cz>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20201016131112.GJ22589@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri 16-10-20 15:11:17, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Fri 16-10-20 14:37:08, osalvador@suse.de wrote:
> > On 2020-10-16 14:31, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > > I do not like the fix though. The code is really confusing. Why should
> > > we check for flags in each iteration of the loop when it cannot change?
> > > Also why should we take the ptl lock in the first place when the look is
> > > broken out immediately?
> > 
> > About checking the flags:
> > 
> > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20190320081643.3c4m5tec5vx653sn@d104.suse.de/#t
> 
> This didn't really help. Maybe the code was different back then but
> right now the code doesn't make much sense TBH. The only reason to check
> inside the loop would be to have a completely unpopulated address range.
> Note about MPOL_MF_STRICT is not checked explicitly and I do not see how
> it makes any difference.

Ohh, I have missed queue_pages_required. Let me think some more.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs