From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2020 12:50:23 -0400 From: Peter Xu Subject: Re: Possible duplicate page fault accounting on some archs after commit 4064b9827063 Message-ID: <20200610165023.GA67179@xz-x1> References: <20200610174811.44b94525@thinkpad> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20200610174811.44b94525@thinkpad> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+geert.uytterhoeven=gmail.com@lists.infradead.org To: Gerald Schaefer Cc: linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Heiko Carstens , linux-mips@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-riscv@lists.infradead.org, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-hexagon@vger.kernel.org, Ley Foon Tan , Andrea Arcangeli , linux-xtensa@linux-xtensa.org, linux-um@lists.infradead.org, linux-m68k@lists.linux-m68k.org, openrisc@lists.librecores.org, Guan Xuetao , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Michal Simek , Nick Hu , linux-parisc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-alpha@vger.kernel.org, Linus Torvalds List-ID: On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 05:48:11PM +0200, Gerald Schaefer wrote: > Hi, Hi, Gerald, > > Some architectures have their page fault accounting code inside the fault > retry loop, and rely on only going through that code once. Before commit > 4064b9827063 ("mm: allow VM_FAULT_RETRY for multiple times"), that was > ensured by testing for and clearing FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY. > > That commit had to remove the clearing of FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY for all > architectures, and introduced a subtle change to page fault accounting > logic in the affected archs. It is now possible to go through the retry > loop multiple times, and the affected archs would then account multiple > page faults instead of just one. > > This was found by coincidence in s390 code, and a quick check showed that > there are quite a lot of other architectures that seem to be affected in a > similar way. I'm preparing a fix for s390, by moving the accounting behind > the retry loop, similar to x86. It is not completely straight-forward, so > I leave the fix for other archs to the respective maintainers. Sorry for not noticing this before. The accounting part should definitely be put at least into a check against fault_flag_allow_retry_first() to mimic what was done before. And I agree it would be even better to put it after the retry logic, so if any of the page faults gets a major fault, it'll be accounted as a major fault which makes more sense to me, just like what x86 is doing now with: major |= fault & VM_FAULT_MAJOR; I'm not sure what's the preference of the arch maintainers, just let me know if it's preferred to use a single series to address this issue for all affected archs (or the archs besides s390), then I'll do. Thanks! -- Peter Xu _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel