Re: [PATCH v6 03/23] mm: Check against orig_pte for finish_fault()
From: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
Date: 2021-12-16 06:23:53
Also in:
lkml
On Thursday, 16 December 2021 4:50:47 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 01:38:33PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:quoted
On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 04:01:47PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:quoted
On Monday, 15 November 2021 6:55:02 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:quoted
We used to check against none pte and in those cases orig_pte should always be none pte anyway.Is that always true? From what I can see in handle_pte_fault() orig_pte only gets initialised in the !pmd_none() case so might not be pte_none.I believe it's true, otherwise I must have overlooked. IMHO it's not "when we set orig_pte" that matters - note that finish_fault() (that this patch modifies) is only called for file-backed memories, and it's only called in do_fault() where the pte is not mapped at all. DAX seems to call it too, but still DAX comes from do_fault() too, afaict. The pte will not be mapped in two cases in handle_pte_fault(): - When pmd_none - When !pmd_none, however if we find that pte_none==true, that's: if (pte_none(vmf->orig_pte)) { pte_unmap(vmf->pte); vmf->pte = NULL; } So when we're already in do_fault(), afaict, orig_pte must be pte_none(). Another side note is that, IIUC pte_none() is a looser check than the pte_val()==0 and it should be arch dependent.So one more thing I forgot to mention... Of course above is based on the fact that orig_pte will be initialized to zero when creating vmf structure, and that's done in __handle_mm_fault(): struct vm_fault vmf = { .vma = vma, .address = address & PAGE_MASK, .flags = flags, .pgoff = linear_page_index(vma, address), .gfp_mask = __get_fault_gfp_mask(vma), }; I'm not sure whether I should explicitly set it to pte_val(0), in most C programs we'll already assume it's a proper reset of orig_pte value in c99 initialization format, but if anyone thinks we should do that explicitly plus some comments I can do that too.
Ok, that was really my question. Is: if (likely(pte_none(*vmf->pte))) equivalent to: if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, __pte(0)))) for every architecture? Looking at Xtensa for example suggests it might not be: arch/xtensa/include/asm/pgtable.h: # define pte_none(pte) (pte_val(pte) == (_PAGE_CA_INVALID | _PAGE_USER))
quoted
Thanks,quoted
quoted
This change prepares us to be able to call do_fault() on !none ptes. For example, we should allow that to happen for pte marker so that we can restore information out of the pte markers. Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> --- mm/memory.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c index 04662b010005..d5966d9e24c3 100644 --- a/mm/memory.c +++ b/mm/memory.c@@ -4052,7 +4052,7 @@ vm_fault_t finish_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf) vmf->address, &vmf->ptl); ret = 0; /* Re-check under ptl */ - if (likely(pte_none(*vmf->pte))) + if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte))) do_set_pte(vmf, page, vmf->address); else ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;