mm/userfaultfd.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
All other userfaultfd paths use unlikely() for the mmap_changing check,
since normally mmap is not changing. The move_pages() path incorrectly
uses likely(), which is the opposite of the intended branch prediction
hint.
This is a performance-only fix - the logic is correct but the branch
prediction annotation is wrong, potentially causing a minor performance
penalty on the fast path.
Fixes: e0a58ef0faa7 ("userfaultfd: UFFDIO_MOVE uABI")
Signed-off-by: Aswin Kumar <aswinkumar3301@gmail.com>
---
mm/userfaultfd.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/mm/userfaultfd.c b/mm/userfaultfd.c
index e6dfd5f28..d27080348 100644
--- a/mm/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/mm/userfaultfd.c
@@ -1793,7 +1793,7 @@ ssize_t move_pages(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx, unsigned long dst_start,
/* Re-check after taking map_changing_lock */
err = -EAGAIN;
down_read(&ctx->map_changing_lock);
- if (likely(atomic_read(&ctx->mmap_changing)))
+ if (unlikely(atomic_read(&ctx->mmap_changing)))
goto out_unlock;
/*
* Make sure the vma is not shared, that the src and dst remap
--
2.43.0
On Wed, Feb 04, 2026 at 02:23:50PM +0000, Aswin Kumar wrote: > All other userfaultfd paths use unlikely() for the mmap_changing check, No they don't? $ git grep mmap_changing mm mm/userfaultfd.c: if (atomic_read(&ctx->mmap_changing)) mm/userfaultfd.c: if (atomic_read(&ctx->mmap_changing)) mm/userfaultfd.c: if (atomic_read(&ctx->mmap_changing)) mm/userfaultfd.c: if (likely(atomic_read(&ctx->mmap_changing))) > This is a performance-only fix - the logic is correct but the branch > prediction annotation is wrong, potentially causing a minor performance > penalty on the fast path. Can you measure it? Bet you can't. Honestly, I'd just remove the likely() annotation, not change it to unlikely().
© 2016 - 2026 Red Hat, Inc.