Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm/page_vma_mapped: page table boundary is already guaranteed

Matthew Wilcox
2019-11-28T22:39:09Z

On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 09:09:45PM +0000, Wei Yang wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 11:31:43AM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >On Thu, Nov 28, 2019 at 09:03:21AM +0800, Wei Yang wrote:
> >> The check here is to guarantee pvmw->address iteration is limited in one
> >> page table boundary. To be specific, here the address range should be in
> >> one PMD_SIZE.
> >>
> >> If my understanding is correct, this check is already done in the above
> >> check:
> >>
> >> address >= __vma_address(page, vma) + PMD_SIZE
> >>
> >> The boundary check here seems not necessary.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Wei Yang <richardw.yang@linux.intel.com>
> >
> >NAK.
> >
> >THP can be mapped with PTE not aligned to PMD_SIZE. Consider mremap().
> >
>
> Hi, Kirill
>
> Thanks for your comment during Thanks Giving Day. Happy holiday:-)
>
> I didn't think about this case before, thanks for reminding. Then I tried to
> understand your concern.
>
> mremap() would expand/shrink a memory mapping. In this case, probably shrink
> is in concern. Since pvmw->page and pvmw->vma are not changed in the loop, the
> case you mentioned maybe pvmw->page is the head of a THP but part of it is
> unmapped.

mremap() can also move a mapping, see MREMAP_FIXED.

> This means the following condition stands:
>
> vma->vm_start <= vma_address(page)
> vma->vm_end <= vma_address(page) + page_size(page)
>
> Since we have checked address with vm_end, do you think this case is also
> guarded?
>
> Not sure my understanding is correct, look forward your comments.
>
> >> Test:
> >> more than 48 hours kernel build test shows this code is not touched.
> >
> >Not an argument. I doubt mremap(2) is ever called in kernel build
> >workload.
> >
> >--
> > Kirill A. Shutemov
>
> --
> Wei Yang
> Help you, Help me
>