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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230626085035.e66992e96b4c6d37dad54bd9@linux-foundation.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230626085035.e66992e96b4c6d37dad54bd9@linux-foundation.org>
From:   Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Date:   Wed, 28 Jun 2023 10:27:44 -0700
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wjyJyV=Kyb8XJcLjFEPP-RMF0J6CQfT2OXLmJdM2yEv8w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] MM updates for 6.5-rc1
To:     Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, mm-commits@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 26 Jun 2023 at 08:50, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> wrote:
>
> Linus, please merge the MM updates for the 6.5-rc cycle.
>  [...]
> merge conflict in mm/gup.c, vs block tree:
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20230616115856.3ce7682c@canb.auug.org.au

Hmm. I think this merge resolution in -next is wrong.

It now does a common

        folio = try_get_folio(page, refs);
        if (flags & FOLL_GET)
                return folio;

for both FOLL_GET and FOLL_PIN, and then *after* that for the FOLL_PIN
case it does that

        /*
         * Don't take a pin on the zero page - it's not going anywhere
         * and it is used in a *lot* of places.
         */
        if (is_zero_page(page))
                return page_folio(page);

but by then it has already done the try_get_folio().

End result: it has already updated refcounts, despite the comment
saying not to do that.

So I think it needs to match the comment (and the try_grab_page()
logic), and just basically

        if (flags & FOLL_GET)
                return try_get_folio(page, refs);

        if (is_zero_page(page))
                return page_folio(page);

        folio = try_get_folio(page, refs);
        if (!folio)
                return NULL;

instead.

That's what my resolution is going to do, but let's add others to the
participants list just in case somebody goes "No, Linus, the reason
-next does that is XYZ"...

               Linus