Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-132095-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240404171726.2302435-1-lokeshgidra@google.com>
 <Zg7hrt5HudXLBUn_@casper.infradead.org> <CAJuCfpHvb5Jt6J1P9aHVdRWYUHmBL1edfp7QHn=jF88gJRD7RA@mail.gmail.com>
 <adce9a6f-fccf-4c9b-8ca3-3140a6a3d326@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <adce9a6f-fccf-4c9b-8ca3-3140a6a3d326@redhat.com>
From: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2024 13:23:08 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpEyb5tWGFUGMREj1zUBSiE3HNueHSPxGcPFnAwdfw6qmA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] userfaultfd: change src_folio after ensuring it's
 unpinned in UFFDIO_MOVE
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Lokesh Gidra <lokeshgidra@google.com>, 
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, 
	kernel-team@android.com, aarcange@redhat.com, peterx@redhat.com, 
	zhengqi.arch@bytedance.com, kaleshsingh@google.com, ngeoffray@google.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 1:16=E2=80=AFPM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>=
 wrote:
>
> On 04.04.24 22:07, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 4, 2024 at 10:21=E2=80=AFAM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead=
org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Thu, Apr 04, 2024 at 10:17:26AM -0700, Lokesh Gidra wrote:
> >>> -             folio_move_anon_rmap(src_folio, dst_vma);
> >>> -             WRITE_ONCE(src_folio->index, linear_page_index(dst_vma,=
 dst_addr));
> >>> -
> >>>                src_pmdval =3D pmdp_huge_clear_flush(src_vma, src_addr=
, src_pmd);
> >>>                /* Folio got pinned from under us. Put it back and fai=
l the move. */
> >>>                if (folio_maybe_dma_pinned(src_folio)) {
> >>> @@ -2270,6 +2267,9 @@ int move_pages_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm, p=
md_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd, pm
> >>>                        goto unlock_ptls;
> >>>                }
> >>>
> >>> +             folio_move_anon_rmap(src_folio, dst_vma);
> >>> +             WRITE_ONCE(src_folio->index, linear_page_index(dst_vma,=
 dst_addr));
> >>> +
> >>
> >> This use of WRITE_ONCE scares me.  We hold the folio locked.  Why do
> >> we need to use WRITE_ONCE?  Who's looking at folio->index without
> >> holding the folio lock?
> >
> > Indeed that seems to be unnecessary here. Both here and in
> > move_present_pte() we are holding folio lock while moving the page. I
> > must have just blindly copied that from Andrea's original patch [1].
>
> Agreed, I don't think it is required for ->index. (I also don't spot any
> corresponding READ_ONCE)

Since this patch just got Ack'ed, I'll wait for Andrew to take it into
mm-unstable and then will send a fix removing those WRITE_ONCE(). That
way we won't have merge conflicts,

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>