Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-199340-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20240603140745.83880-1-ioworker0@gmail.com> <Zl3Wjh9_aGY8Xxm7@casper.infradead.org>
 <c0309ab6-8bae-42b7-8d27-1df895689fb8@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <c0309ab6-8bae-42b7-8d27-1df895689fb8@redhat.com>
From: Lance Yang <ioworker0@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2024 23:08:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CAK1f24n9UB=Xqj23vLG7fYKUfvZgLqFVF-tsyc_nDrwAKC98CQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/1] mm/mlock: implement folio_mlock_step() using folio_pte_batch()
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, akpm@linux-foundation.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com, 
	21cnbao@gmail.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, ziy@nvidia.com, 
	fengwei.yin@intel.com, ying.huang@intel.com, libang.li@antgroup.com, 
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 10:56=E2=80=AFPM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com=
> wrote:
>
> On 03.06.24 16:43, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 03, 2024 at 10:07:45PM +0800, Lance Yang wrote:
> >> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> >> @@ -307,26 +307,15 @@ void munlock_folio(struct folio *folio)
> >>   static inline unsigned int folio_mlock_step(struct folio *folio,
> >>              pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
> >>   {
> >> -    unsigned int count, i, nr =3D folio_nr_pages(folio);
> >> -    unsigned long pfn =3D folio_pfn(folio);
> >> +    const fpb_t fpb_flags =3D FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY | FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRT=
Y;
> >> +    unsigned int count =3D (end - addr) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >
> > This is a pre-existing bug, but ... what happens if you're on a 64-bit
> > system and you mlock() a range that is exactly 2^44 bytes?  Seems to me
> > that count becomes 0.  Why not use an unsigned long here and avoid the
> > problem entirely?
> >
> > folio_pte_batch() also needs to take an unsigned long max_nr in that
> > case, because you aren't restricting it to folio_nr_pages().
>
> Yeah, likely we should also take a look at other folio_pte_batch() users
> like copy_present_ptes() that pass the count as an int. Nothing should
> really be broken, but we might not batch as much as we could, which is
> unfortunate.

Could I change folio_pte_batch() to take an unsigned long max_nr?

Thanks,
Lance

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