[PATCH] arm64: Fix the ptep_set_wrprotect() to set PTE_DIRTY if (PTE_DBM && !PTE_RDONLY)
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
Date: 2016-03-09 16:04:10
Also in:
lkml
Subsystem:
arm64 port (aarch64 architecture), the rest · Maintainers:
Catalin Marinas, Will Deacon, Linus Torvalds
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 05:17:39PM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:
On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:36 PM, Catalin Marinas [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Wed, Mar 09, 2016 at 10:32:48AM +0530, Ganapatrao Kulkarni wrote:quoted
Commit 2f4b829c625e ("arm64: Add support for hardware updates of the access and dirty pte bits") introduced support for handling hardware updates of the access flag and dirty status. ptep_set_wrprotect is setting PTR_DIRTY if !PTE_RDONLY, however by design it suppose to set PTE_DIRTY only if (PTE_DBM && !PTE_RDONLY). This patch addes code to test and set accordingly.The reasoning behind the original code is that if !PTE_RDONLY, you have no way to tell whether the page was written or not since it is already writable, independent of the DBM. So by clearing the DBM bit (making the page read-only), we need to ensure that a potential dirty state is transferred to the software PTE_DIRTY bit. By checking PTE_DBM && !PTE_RDONLY, you kind of imply that you can have a page with !PTE_DBM && !PTE_RDONLY. Given that PTE_DBM is actually PTE_WRITE, PTE_RDONLY must always be set when !PTE_DBM. The bug may be elsewhere not setting these bits correctly.but i do see this macro, #define pte_hw_dirty(pte) (pte_write(pte) && !(pte_val(pte) & PTE_RDONLY))
This was added in commit b847415ce96e ("arm64: Fix the pte_hw_dirty()
check when AF/DBM is enabled") for the pte_modify() case which is not
called on the actual PTE but a local variable. A pte passed to this
function as !PTE_DBM && !PTE_RDONLY should not be assumed dirty since
PTE_RDONLY will be set later by set_pte_at() when the actual page table
write occurs.
ptep_set_wrprotect() is run directly on the actual PTE, so here a
!PTE_RDONLY only means potentially dirty, independent of the PTE_DBM
bit. I consider the additional PTE_DBM check superfluous in this case
but we need to understand when we would actually get a pte with both
PTE_DBM and PTE_RDONLY cleared.
The only way I see this happening is if the pte doesn't have PTE_VALID
set, IOW it probably has PTE_PROT_NONE set which is used by the NUMA
balancing. So calling set_pte_at() on a !PTE_VALID && !PTE_DBM pte does
not currently set PTE_RDONLY and ptep_set_wrprotect() wrongly assumes it
is dirty.
i dont see this issue, if i comment out arm64 implementation of ptep_set_wrprotect()
Because the default implementation discards any existing hw dirty information by clearing the PTE_DBM bit and setting PTE_RDONLY via the set_pte_at (of course, apart from the atomicity issues).
quoted
quoted
This patch fixes BUG, kernel BUG at /build/linux-StrpB2/linux-4.4.0/fs/ext4/inode.c:2394! Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] SMPWhich bug is this? It's a PageWriteback() check in the for-next/core branch. What kernel version are you using?i am using 4.4.0
I guess with additional NUMA patches since it only fails when you enable the NUMA_BALANCING configuration.
quoted
BTW, in 4.5-rc2 we pushed commit ac15bd63bbb2 ("arm64: Honour !PTE_WRITE in set_pte_at() for kernel mappings"), though not sure that's what you are hitting.i have tried this patch, but issue still exist. crash log below root at ubuntu:/home/ganapat/test# [ 733.853009] kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:2394!
Is this the BUG_ON in page_buffers(!PagePrivate(page))? I can see in the code above this that wrongly marking a page as dirty could have some side effects. Can you give this patch a try, on top of commit ac15bd63bbb2? -------------8<----------------------
diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
index 7c73b365fcfa..b409a983f870 100644
--- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
+++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h@@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ extern void __sync_icache_dcache(pte_t pteval, unsigned long addr); static inline void set_pte_at(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte) { - if (pte_valid(pte)) { + if (pte_present(pte)) { if (pte_sw_dirty(pte) && pte_write(pte)) pte_val(pte) &= ~PTE_RDONLY; else