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: <7cd1db3f-9bdf-dc0b-692c-380a2fa14286@redhat.com>
Date:   Tue, 20 Jun 2023 17:28:28 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/8] mm/hugetlb: Prepare hugetlb_follow_page_mask() for
 FOLL_PIN
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc:     Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        James Houghton <jthoughton@google.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
References: <20230619231044.112894-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20230619231044.112894-3-peterx@redhat.com>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <20230619231044.112894-3-peterx@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 20.06.23 01:10, Peter Xu wrote:
> follow_page() doesn't use FOLL_PIN, meanwhile hugetlb seems to not be the
> target of FOLL_WRITE either.  However add the checks.
> 
> Namely, either the need to CoW due to missing write bit, or proper CoR on
> !AnonExclusive pages over R/O pins to reject the follow page.  That brings
> this function closer to follow_hugetlb_page().
> 
> So we don't care before, and also for now.  But we'll care if we switch
> over slow-gup to use hugetlb_follow_page_mask().  We'll also care when to
> return -EMLINK properly, as that's the gup internal api to mean "we should
> do CoR".  Not really needed for follow page path, though.
> 
> When at it, switching the try_grab_page() to use WARN_ON_ONCE(), to be
> clear that it just should never fail.

Oh, and does this comment really belong into this patch or am I confused?

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb