arch/arm/mm: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
Subsystems (3)
PATCH 1/1 arch/arm/mm: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
The change [1] missed ARM architecture when fixing major fault accounting for page fault retry under per-VMA lock. Add missing code to fix ARM architecture fault accounting.
[1] 46e714c729c8 ("arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock")
--- arch/arm/mm/fault.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
arch/arm/mm/fault.c +2 -0
@@ -298,6 +298,8 @@ do_page_fault(unsigned long addr, unsigned int fsr, struct pt_regs *regs) goto done; }count_vm_vma_lock_event (VMA_LOCK_RETRY ); +if (fault &VM_FAULT_MAJOR ) + flags |=FAULT_FLAG_TRIED ;/* Quick path to respond to signals */ if (fault_signal_pending (fault, regs)) {
Signature · 1 line
2.43.0.429.g432eaa2c6b-goog
Quoted 7 lines · On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 22:43:05 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <[email protected]> wrote:
The change [1] missed ARM architecture when fixing major fault accounting for page fault retry under per-VMA lock. Add missing code to fix ARM architecture fault accounting.
[1]
46e714c729c8("arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock")Fixes 12214eba1992 ("mm: handle read faults under the VMA lock")
What are the userspace-visible runtime effects of this change?
Is a cc:stable backport desirable?
Quoted 2 lines
Reported-by Russell King (Oracle) <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Suren Baghdasaryan <[email protected]>
Quoted 7 lines · Andrew Morton
Quoted 4 lines · On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 22:43:05 -0800 Suren Baghdasaryan <[email protected]> wrote:
The change [1] missed ARM architecture when fixing major fault accounting for page fault retry under per-VMA lock. Add missing code to fix ARM architecture fault accounting.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 3 lines
[1]
46e714c729c8("arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock")Fixes 12214eba1992 ("mm: handle read faults under the VMA lock")What are the userspace-visible runtime effects of this change?
The user-visible effects is that it restores correct major fault accounting that was broken after [2] was merged in 6.7 kernel. The more detailed description is in [3] and this patch simply adds the same fix to ARM architecture which I missed in [3]. I can re-send the patch with the full description from [3] if needed.
Quoted 2 lines
Is a cc:stable backport desirable?
Yes, I guess since [2] was merged in 6.7, cc-ing stable would be desirable. Please let me know if you want me to re-send the patch with full description and CC'ing stable.
[2] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
[3] https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/
Quoted 3 lines
Quoted 3 lines
Reported-by Russell King (Oracle) <[email protected]>Signed-off-by Suren Baghdasaryan <[email protected]>
This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes) by Andrew Morton <[email protected]>:
Hello:
This patch was applied to riscv/linux.git (fixes)
by Andrew Morton <[email protected]>:
Quoted 9 lines · On Mon, 22 Jan 2024 22:43:05 -0800 you wrote:
The change [1] missed ARM architecture when fixing major fault accounting for page fault retry under per-VMA lock. Add missing code to fix ARM architecture fault accounting.
[1]
46e714c729c8("arch/mm/fault: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock")Fixes 12214eba1992 ("mm: handle read faults under the VMA lock")[...]
Here is the summary with links:
- [1/1] arch/arm/mm: fix major fault accounting when retrying under per-VMA lock
https://git.kernel.org/riscv/c/e870920bbe68
You are awesome, thank you!
Signature · 2 lines
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot. https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html