From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.5 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_MUTT autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC190C43381 for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:19:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F21A2084D for ; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:19:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726793AbfBYGTX (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 01:19:23 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:47406 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726401AbfBYGTW (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 01:19:22 -0500 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E51630013E6; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from xz-x1 (ovpn-12-105.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.12.105]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 321E310027D9; Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:19:11 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 14:19:09 +0800 From: Peter Xu To: Jerome Glisse Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Hildenbrand , Hugh Dickins , Maya Gokhale , Pavel Emelyanov , Martin Cracauer , Shaohua Li , Marty McFadden , Andrea Arcangeli , Mike Kravetz , Denis Plotnikov , Mike Rapoport , Mel Gorman , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2.1 04/26] mm: allow VM_FAULT_RETRY for multiple times Message-ID: <20190225061835.GA28121@xz-x1> References: <20190212025632.28946-5-peterx@redhat.com> <20190221085656.18529-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20190221155311.GD2813@redhat.com> <20190222042544.GD8904@xz-x1> <20190222151101.GA7783@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190222151101.GA7783@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.48]); Mon, 25 Feb 2019 06:19:22 +0000 (UTC) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 10:11:58AM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2019 at 12:25:44PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 10:53:11AM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 21, 2019 at 04:56:56PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > > > > The idea comes from a discussion between Linus and Andrea [1]. > > [...] > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > > > > index 248ff0a28ecd..d842c3e02a50 100644 > > > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > > > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c > > > > @@ -1483,9 +1483,7 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, > > > > if (unlikely(fault & VM_FAULT_RETRY)) { > > > > bool is_user = flags & FAULT_FLAG_USER; > > > > > > > > - /* Retry at most once */ > > > > if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY) { > > > > - flags &= ~FAULT_FLAG_ALLOW_RETRY; > > > > flags |= FAULT_FLAG_TRIED; > > > > if (is_user && signal_pending(tsk)) > > > > return; > > > > > > So here you have a change in behavior, it can retry indefinitly for as > > > long as they are no signal. Don't you want so test for FAULT_FLAG_TRIED ? > > > > These first five patches do want to allow the page fault to retry as > > much as needed. "indefinitely" seems to be a scary word, but IMHO > > this is fine for page faults since otherwise we'll simply crash the > > program or even crash the system depending on the fault context, so it > > seems to be nowhere worse. > > > > For userspace programs, if anything really really go wrong (so far I > > still cannot think a valid scenario in a bug-free system, but just > > assuming...) and it loops indefinitely, IMHO it'll just hang the buggy > > process itself rather than coredump, and the admin can simply kill the > > process to retake the resources since we'll still detect signals. > > > > Or did I misunderstood the question? > > No i think you are right, it is fine to keep retrying while they are > no signal maybe just add a comment that says so in so many words :) > So people do not see that as a potential issue. Sure thing. I don't know whether commenting this on all the architectures is good... I'll try to add some comments above FAULT_FLAG_* deinitions to explain this. Thanks! -- Peter Xu