On Tue Apr 8, 2025 at 1:11 AM AEST, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> Reverse 'create' vs 'mm == &init_mm' conditions and move
> page table mask modification out of the atomic context.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexander Gordeev <agord...@linux.ibm.com>
> ---
> mm/memory.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 2d8c265fc7d6..f0201c8ec1ce 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -2915,24 +2915,28 @@ static int apply_to_pte_range(struct mm_struct *mm,
> pmd_t *pmd,
> pte_fn_t fn, void *data, bool create,
> pgtbl_mod_mask *mask)
> {
> + int err = create ? -ENOMEM : -EINVAL;
Could you make this a new variable instead of reusing
existing err? 'const int pte_err' or something?
> pte_t *pte, *mapped_pte;
> - int err = 0;
> spinlock_t *ptl;
>
> - if (create) {
> - mapped_pte = pte = (mm == &init_mm) ?
> - pte_alloc_kernel_track(pmd, addr, mask) :
> - pte_alloc_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> + if (mm == &init_mm) {
> + if (create)
> + pte = pte_alloc_kernel_track(pmd, addr, mask);
> + else
> + pte = pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr);
> if (!pte)
> - return -ENOMEM;
> + return err;
> } else {
> - mapped_pte = pte = (mm == &init_mm) ?
> - pte_offset_kernel(pmd, addr) :
> - pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> + if (create)
> + pte = pte_alloc_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> + else
> + pte = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> if (!pte)
> - return -EINVAL;
> + return err;
> + mapped_pte = pte;
> }
>
> + err = 0;
> arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
>
> if (fn) {
> @@ -2944,12 +2948,14 @@ static int apply_to_pte_range(struct mm_struct *mm,
> pmd_t *pmd,
> }
> } while (addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
> }
> - *mask |= PGTBL_PTE_MODIFIED;
>
> arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
>
> if (mm != &init_mm)
> pte_unmap_unlock(mapped_pte, ptl);
> +
> + *mask |= PGTBL_PTE_MODIFIED;
This is done just because we might as well? Less work in critical
section?
Reviewed-by: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com>
> +
> return err;
> }
>
