Re: [PATCH 1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock

[Russell King (Oracle)]

On Sat, Jan 20, 2024 at 09:09:47PM +0000, patchwork-bot+linux-riscv@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> Hello:
> 
> This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
> by Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> 
> On Tue, 26 Dec 2023 13:46:10 -0800 you wrote:
> > A test [1] in Android test suite started failing after [2] was merged.
> > It turns out that after handling a major fault under per-VMA lock, the
> > process major fault counter does not register that fault as major.
> > Before [2] read faults would be done under mmap_lock, in which case
> > FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag is set before retrying. That in turn causes
> > mm_account_fault() to account the fault as major once retry completes.
> > With per-VMA locks we often retry because a fault can't be handled
> > without locking the whole mm using mmap_lock. Therefore such retries
> > do not set FAULT_FLAG_TRIED flag. This logic does not work after [2]
> > because we can now handle read major faults under per-VMA lock and
> > upon retry the fact there was a major fault gets lost. Fix this by
> > setting FAULT_FLAG_TRIED after retrying under per-VMA lock if
> > VM_FAULT_MAJOR was returned. Ideally we would use an additional
> > VM_FAULT bit to indicate the reason for the retry (could not handle
> > under per-VMA lock vs other reason) but this simpler solution seems
> > to work, so keeping it simple.
> > 
> > [...]
> 
> Here is the summary with links:
>   - [1/1] arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
>     https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/46e714c729c8
> 
> You are awesome, thank you!

Now that 32-bit ARM has support for the per-VMA lock, does that also
need to be patched?

-- 
RMK's Patch system: https://www.armlinux.org.uk/developer/patches/
FTTP is here! 80Mbps down 10Mbps up. Decent connectivity at last!