On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 10:11:21AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2025 at 12:10:41PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > @@ -151,20 +123,55 @@ static int hugetlbfs_file_mmap(struct file *file, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > vm_flags |= VM_NORESERVE;
> >
> > if (hugetlb_reserve_pages(inode,
> > - vma->vm_pgoff >> huge_page_order(h),
> > - len >> huge_page_shift(h), vma,
> > - vm_flags) < 0)
> > + vma->vm_pgoff >> huge_page_order(h),
> > + len >> huge_page_shift(h), vma,
> > + vm_flags) < 0) {
>
> It was split like this because vma is passed here right?
>
> But hugetlb_reserve_pages() doesn't do much with the vma:
>
> hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc(vma);
> [..]
> vma->vm_private_data = vma_lock;
>
> Manipulates the private which should already exist in prepare:
>
> Check non-share a few times:
>
> if (!vma || vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) {
> if (vma && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) && h_cg) {
> if (!vma || vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) {
>
> And does this resv_map stuff:
>
> set_vma_resv_map(vma, resv_map);
> set_vma_resv_flags(vma, HPAGE_RESV_OWNER);
> [..]
> set_vma_private_data(vma, (unsigned long)map);
>
> Which is also just manipulating the private data.
>
> So it looks to me like it should be refactored so that
> hugetlb_reserve_pages() returns the priv pointer to set in the VMA
> instead of accepting vma as an argument. Maybe just pass in the desc
> instead?
Well hugetlb_vma_lock_alloc() does:
vma_lock->vma = vma;
Which we cannot do in prepare.
This is checked in hugetlb_dup_vma_private(), and obviously desc is not a stable
pointer to be used for comparing anything.
I'm also trying to do the minimal changes I can here, I'd rather not majorly
refactor things to suit this change if possible.
>
> Then no need to introduce complete. I think it is probably better to
> try to avoid using complete except for filling PTEs..
I'd rather do that yes. hugetlbfs is the exception to many rules, unfortunately.
>
> Jason
Cheers, Lorenzo
