[PATCH v4] mm: Avoid unnecessary page fault retires on shared memory types

[Christian Borntraeger]

Am 30.05.22 um 18:00 schrieb Peter Xu:
> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:52:54AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
>> On Mon, May 30, 2022 at 11:35:10AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Am 29.05.22 um 22:33 schrieb Heiko Carstens:
>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Guess the patch below on top of your patch is what we want.
>>>> Just for clarification: if gmap is not NULL then the process is a kvm
>>>> process. So, depending on the workload, this optimization makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
>>>> index 4608cc962ecf..e1d40ca341b7 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/mm/fault.c
>>>> @@ -436,12 +436,11 @@ static inline vm_fault_t do_exception(struct pt_regs *regs, int access)
>>>>    	/* The fault is fully completed (including releasing mmap lock) */
>>>>    	if (fault & VM_FAULT_COMPLETED) {
>>>> -		/*
>>>> -		 * Gmap will need the mmap lock again, so retake it.  TODO:
>>>> -		 * only conditionally take the lock when CONFIG_PGSTE set.
>>>> -		 */
>>>> -		mmap_read_lock(mm);
>>>> -		goto out_gmap;
>>>> +		if (gmap) {
>>>> +			mmap_read_lock(mm);
>>>> +			goto out_gmap;
>>>> +		}
>>>> +		goto out;
> 
> Hmm, right after I replied I found "goto out" could be problematic, since
> all s390 callers of do_exception() will assume it an error condition (side
> note: "goto out_gmap" contains one step to clear "fault" to 0).  I'll
> replace this with "return 0" instead if it looks good to both of you.
> 
> I'll wait for a confirmation before reposting.  Thanks,

Yes, that sounds good and thank you for double checking.