Re: [PATCH v5 02/10] hugetlb/userfaultfd: Forbid huge pmd sharing when uffd enabled
From: Mike Kravetz <hidden>
Date: 2021-02-12 21:29:48
Also in:
linux-mm, lkml
On 2/12/21 12:47 PM, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:40 PM Peter Xu [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 04:19:55PM -0800, Mike Kravetz wrote:quoted
want_pmd_share() is currently just a check for CONFIG_ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE. How about leaving that mostly as is, and adding the new vma checks to vma_shareable(). vma_shareable() would then be something like: if (!(vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE)) return false; #ifdef CONFIG_USERFAULTFD if (uffd_disable_huge_pmd_share(vma) return false; #endif #ifdef /* XXX */ /* add other checks for things like uffd wp and soft dirty here */ #endif /* XXX */ if (range_in_vma(vma, base, end) return true; return false; Of course, this would require we leave the call to vma_shareable() at the beginning of huge_pmd_share. It also means that we are always making a function call into huge_pmd_share to determine if sharing is possible. That is not any different than today. If we do not want to make that extra function call, then I would suggest putting all that code in want_pmd_share. It just seems that all the vma checks for sharing should be in one place if possible.I don't worry a lot on that since we've already got huge_pte_alloc() which takes care of huge pmd sharing case, so I don't expect e.g. even most hugetlb developers to use want_pmd_share() at all, because huge_pte_alloc() will be the one that frequently got called. But yeah we can definitely put the check logic into huge_pmd_share() too. Looking at above code it looks still worth a helper like want_pmd_share() or with some other name. Then... instead of making this complicated, how about I mostly keep this patch but move want_pmd_share() call into huge_pmd_share() instead?
When looking at this again, all I was suggesting was a single routine to check for the possibility of pmd sharing. That is what the version of want_pmd_share in this patch does. I have some patches for future optimizations that only take i_mmap_rwsem in the fault path if sharing is possible. This is before huge_pte_alloc. want_pmd_share as defined in this patch would work for that. Sorry for the noise. -- Mike Kravetz