Re: [PATCH v1 2/6] fs/proc/task_mmu: don't indicate PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE without PM_PRESENT

Oscar Salvador
2024-06-10T04:49:13Z

On Fri, Jun 07, 2024 at 02:23:53PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Relying on the mapcount for non-present PTEs that reference pages
> doesn't make any sense: they are not accounted in the mapcount, so
> page_mapcount() == 1 won't return the result we actually want to know.
>
> While we don't check the mapcount for migration entries already, we
> could end up checking it for swap, hwpoison, device exclusive, ...
> entries, which we really shouldn't.
>
> There is one exception: device private entries, which we consider
> fake-present (e.g., incremented the mapcount). But we won't care about
> that for now for PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE, because indicating PM_SWAP for them
> although they are fake-present already sounds suspiciously wrong.
>
> Let's never indicate PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE without PM_PRESENT.
>
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Forgot to comment on something:

> @@ -1517,14 +1514,13 @@ static int pagemap_pmd_range(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> if (pmd_swp_uffd_wp(pmd))
> flags |= PM_UFFD_WP;
> VM_BUG_ON(!is_pmd_migration_entry(pmd));
> - migration = is_migration_entry(entry);
> page = pfn_swap_entry_to_page(entry);

We do not really need to get the page anymore here as that is the non-present
part.

Then we could get away without checking the flags as only page != NULL
would mean a present pmd.

Not that we gain much as this is far from being a hot-path, but just
saying..

--
Oscar Salvador
SUSE Labs