All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@kernel.org
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	willy@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	palmer@dabbelt.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
	christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
	gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 21:15:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zaw31DVa9q3JZASo@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <170578498755.24348.16166096320323933297.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org>

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 09:09:47PM +0000, patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@kernel.org wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
> by Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:46:10 -0800 you wrote:
> > A test [1] in Android test suite started failing after [2] was merged.
> > It turns out that after handling a major fault under per-VMA lock, the
> > process major fault counter does not register that fault as major.
> > Before [2] read faults would be done under mmap_lock, in which case
> > FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag is set before retrying. That in turn causes
> > mm_account_fault() to account the fault as major once retry completes.
> > With per-VMA locks we often retry because a fault can't be handled
> > without locking the whole mm using mmap_lock. Therefore such retries
> > do not set FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag. This logic does not work after [2]
> > because we can now handle read major faults under per-VMA lock and
> > upon retry the fact there was a major fault gets lost. Fix this by
> > setting FAULT_FLAG_TRIED after retrying under per-VMA lock if
> > VM_FAULT_MAJOR was returned. Ideally we would use an additional
> > VM_FAULT bit to indicate the reason for the retry (could not handle
> > under per-VMA lock vs other reason) but this simpler solution seems
> > to work, so keeping it simple.
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Here is the summary with links:
>   - [1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
>     https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/46e714c729c8
> 
> You are awesome, thank you!

Now that 32-bit ARM has support for the per-VMA lock, does that also
need to be patched?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-riscv mailing list
linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-riscv

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@kernel.org
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	willy@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	palmer@dabbelt.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
	christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
	gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 21:15:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zaw31DVa9q3JZASo@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <170578498755.24348.16166096320323933297.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org>

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 09:09:47PM +0000, patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@kernel.org wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
> by Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:46:10 -0800 you wrote:
> > A test [1] in Android test suite started failing after [2] was merged.
> > It turns out that after handling a major fault under per-VMA lock, the
> > process major fault counter does not register that fault as major.
> > Before [2] read faults would be done under mmap_lock, in which case
> > FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag is set before retrying. That in turn causes
> > mm_account_fault() to account the fault as major once retry completes.
> > With per-VMA locks we often retry because a fault can't be handled
> > without locking the whole mm using mmap_lock. Therefore such retries
> > do not set FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag. This logic does not work after [2]
> > because we can now handle read major faults under per-VMA lock and
> > upon retry the fact there was a major fault gets lost. Fix this by
> > setting FAULT_FLAG_TRIED after retrying under per-VMA lock if
> > VM_FAULT_MAJOR was returned. Ideally we would use an additional
> > VM_FAULT bit to indicate the reason for the retry (could not handle
> > under per-VMA lock vs other reason) but this simpler solution seems
> > to work, so keeping it simple.
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Here is the summary with links:
>   - [1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
>     https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/46e714c729c8
> 
> You are awesome, thank you!

Now that 32-bit ARM has support for the per-VMA lock, does that also
need to be patched?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@kernel.org
Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
	gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, peterz@infradead.org,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, x86@kernel.org, willy@infradead.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	palmer@dabbelt.com, luto@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, will@kernel.org,
	akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 21:15:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zaw31DVa9q3JZASo@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <170578498755.24348.16166096320323933297.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org>

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 09:09:47PM +0000, patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@kernel.org wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
> by Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:46:10 -0800 you wrote:
> > A test [1] in Android test suite started failing after [2] was merged.
> > It turns out that after handling a major fault under per-VMA lock, the
> > process major fault counter does not register that fault as major.
> > Before [2] read faults would be done under mmap_lock, in which case
> > FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag is set before retrying. That in turn causes
> > mm_account_fault() to account the fault as major once retry completes.
> > With per-VMA locks we often retry because a fault can't be handled
> > without locking the whole mm using mmap_lock. Therefore such retries
> > do not set FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag. This logic does not work after [2]
> > because we can now handle read major faults under per-VMA lock and
> > upon retry the fact there was a major fault gets lost. Fix this by
> > setting FAULT_FLAG_TRIED after retrying under per-VMA lock if
> > VM_FAULT_MAJOR was returned. Ideally we would use an additional
> > VM_FAULT bit to indicate the reason for the retry (could not handle
> > under per-VMA lock vs other reason) but this simpler solution seems
> > to work, so keeping it simple.
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Here is the summary with links:
>   - [1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
>     https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/46e714c729c8
> 
> You are awesome, thank you!

Now that 32-bit ARM has support for the per-VMA lock, does that also
need to be patched?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
To: patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@kernel.org
Cc: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
	willy@infradead.org, will@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	palmer@dabbelt.com, mpe@ellerman.id.au,
	christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
	gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
	luto@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org, x86@kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
Date: Sat, 20 Jan 2024 21:15:01 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <Zaw31DVa9q3JZASo@shell.armlinux.org.uk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <170578498755.24348.16166096320323933297.git-patchwork-notify@kernel.org>

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 09:09:47PM +0000, patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@kernel.org wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
> by Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:46:10 -0800 you wrote:
> > A test [1] in Android test suite started failing after [2] was merged.
> > It turns out that after handling a major fault under per-VMA lock, the
> > process major fault counter does not register that fault as major.
> > Before [2] read faults would be done under mmap_lock, in which case
> > FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag is set before retrying. That in turn causes
> > mm_account_fault() to account the fault as major once retry completes.
> > With per-VMA locks we often retry because a fault can't be handled
> > without locking the whole mm using mmap_lock. Therefore such retries
> > do not set FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag. This logic does not work after [2]
> > because we can now handle read major faults under per-VMA lock and
> > upon retry the fact there was a major fault gets lost. Fix this by
> > setting FAULT_FLAG_TRIED after retrying under per-VMA lock if
> > VM_FAULT_MAJOR was returned. Ideally we would use an additional
> > VM_FAULT bit to indicate the reason for the retry (could not handle
> > under per-VMA lock vs other reason) but this simpler solution seems
> > to work, so keeping it simple.
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Here is the summary with links:
>   - [1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
>     https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/46e714c729c8
> 
> You are awesome, thank you!

Now that 32-bit ARM has support for the per-VMA lock, does that also
need to be patched?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!

_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel

  reply	other threads:[~2024-01-20 21:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2023-12-26 21:46 [PATCH 1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-12-26 21:46 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-12-26 21:46 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2023-12-26 21:46 ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2024-01-20 21:09 ` patchwork-bot+linux-riscv
2024-01-20 21:09   ` patchwork-bot+linux-riscv
2024-01-20 21:09   ` patchwork-bot+linux-riscv
2024-01-20 21:09   ` patchwork-bot+linux-riscv
2024-01-20 21:15   ` Russell King (Oracle) [this message]
2024-01-20 21:15     ` Russell King (Oracle)
2024-01-20 21:15     ` Russell King (Oracle)
2024-01-20 21:15     ` Russell King (Oracle)
2024-01-22  7:38     ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2024-01-22  7:38       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2024-01-22  7:38       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2024-01-22  7:38       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2024-01-23  6:45       ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2024-01-23  6:45         ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2024-01-23  6:45         ` Suren Baghdasaryan
2024-01-23  6:45         ` Suren Baghdasaryan

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=Zaw31DVa9q3JZASo@shell.armlinux.org.uk \
    --to=linux@armlinux.org.uk \
    --cc=agordeev@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=christophe.leroy@csgroup.eu \
    --cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
    --cc=gerald.schaefer@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-s390@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
    --cc=luto@kernel.org \
    --cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
    --cc=palmer@dabbelt.com \
    --cc=patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@kernel.org \
    --cc=peterz@infradead.org \
    --cc=surenb@google.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    --cc=x86@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.