Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <1699e1b3-0508-4561-a7ec-052f382ca3c8@suse.cz>
Date:   Thu, 10 Feb 2022 12:35:19 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.5.1
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Greg Thelen <gthelen@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
References: <8e4356d-9622-a7f0-b2c-f116b5f2efea@google.com>
 <2b5eee76-183f-bd97-2e9d-f5ff8df63db@google.com>
From:   Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13] mm/munlock: delete FOLL_MLOCK and FOLL_POPULATE
In-Reply-To: <2b5eee76-183f-bd97-2e9d-f5ff8df63db@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 2/6/22 22:32, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> If counting page mlocks, we must not double-count: follow_page_pte() can
> tell if a page has already been Mlocked or not, but cannot tell if a pte
> has already been counted or not: that will have to be done when the pte
> is mapped in (which lru_cache_add_inactive_or_unevictable() already tracks
> for new anon pages, but there's no such tracking yet for others).
> 
> Delete all the FOLL_MLOCK code - faulting in the missing pages will do
> all that is necessary, without special mlock_vma_page() calls from here.
> 
> But then FOLL_POPULATE turns out to serve no purpose - it was there so
> that its absence would tell faultin_page() not to faultin page when
> setting up VM_LOCKONFAULT areas; but if there's no special work needed
> here for mlock, then there's no work at all here for VM_LOCKONFAULT.
> 
> Have I got that right?  I've not looked into the history, but see that
> FOLL_POPULATE goes back before VM_LOCKONFAULT: did it serve a different
> purpose before?  Ah, yes, it was used to skip the old stack guard page.
> 
> And is it intentional that COW is not broken on existing pages when
> setting up a VM_LOCKONFAULT area?  I can see that being argued either
> way, and have no reason to disagree with current behaviour.

Yeah I think it's consistent with the two usecases stated for VM_LOCKONFAULT:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/1441720742-7803-1-git-send-email-emunson@akamai.com/

> Signed-off-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>

Acked-by: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>