Re: [PATCH] mm/gup: stop leaking pinned pages in low memory conditions

David Hildenbrand
2024-10-17T22:03:10Z

On 17.10.24 23:57, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 10/17/24 2:47 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 17.10.24 23:28, Alistair Popple wrote:
>>> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> writes:
>>>> On 16.10.24 22:22, John Hubbard wrote:
> ...
>>>>> +        if (rc != -EAGAIN && rc != 0)
>>>>> +            unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pinned_pages);
>>>>> +
>>>>>        } while (rc == -EAGAIN);
>>>>
>>>> Wouldn't it be cleaner to simply have here after the loop (possibly
>>>> even after the memalloc_pin_restore())
>>>>
>>>> if (rc)
>>>>     unpin_user_pages(pages, nr_pinned_pages);
>>>>
>>>> But maybe I am missing something.
>>>
>>> I initially thought the same thing but I'm not sure it is
>>> correct. Consider what happens when __get_user_pages_locked() fails
>>> earlier in the loop. In this case it will have bailed out of the loop
>>> with rc <= 0 but we shouldn't call unpin_user_pages().
>
> doh. yes. Thanks for catching that, Alistair! I actually considered
> it during the first draft, too, but got tunnel vision during the
> review, sigh.
>
>>
>> Ah, I see what you mean, I primarily only stared at the diff.
>>
>> We should likely avoid using nr_pinned_pages as a temporary variable that
>> can hold an error value.
>>
>
> OK, I still want to defer all the pretty refactoring ideas into some
> future effort, so for now, let's just leave v1 alone except for fixing
> the typo in the comment, yes?

Fine with me!

Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb