[PATCH] mm/hugetlb: Use the right pte val for compare in hugetlb_cow

We cannot use the pte value used in set_pte_at for pte_same comparison,
because archs like ppc64, filter/add new pte flag in set_pte_at. Instead
fetch the pte value inside hugetlb_cow. We are comparing pte value to
make sure the pte didn't change since we dropped the page table lock.
hugetlb_cow get called with page table lock held, and we can take a copy
of the pte value before we drop the page table lock.

With hugetlbfs, we optimize the MAP_PRIVATE write fault path with no
previous mapping (huge_pte_none entries), by forcing a cow in the fault
path. This avoid take an addition fault to covert a read-only mapping
to read/write. Here we were comparing a recently instantiated pte (via
set_pte_at) to the pte values from linux page table. As explained above
on ppc64 such pte_same check returned wrong result, resulting in us
taking an additional fault on ppc64.

Fixes: 6a119eae942c ("powerpc/mm: Add a _PAGE_PTE bit")

Reported-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <redacted>
---
 mm/hugetlb.c | 12 +++++++-----
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index ec49d9ef1eef..da8fbd02b92e 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c

@@ -3386,15 +3386,17 @@ static void unmap_ref_private(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
  * Keep the pte_same checks anyway to make transition from the mutex easier.
  */
 static int hugetlb_cow(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
-			unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte,
-			struct page *pagecache_page, spinlock_t *ptl)
+		       unsigned long address, pte_t *ptep,
+		       struct page *pagecache_page, spinlock_t *ptl)
 {
+	pte_t pte;
 	struct hstate *h = hstate_vma(vma);
 	struct page *old_page, *new_page;
 	int ret = 0, outside_reserve = 0;
 	unsigned long mmun_start;	/* For mmu_notifiers */
 	unsigned long mmun_end;		/* For mmu_notifiers */
 
+	pte = huge_ptep_get(ptep);
 	old_page = pte_page(pte);
 
 retry_avoidcopy:

@@ -3668,7 +3670,7 @@ static int hugetlb_no_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 	hugetlb_count_add(pages_per_huge_page(h), mm);
 	if ((flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SHARED)) {
 		/* Optimization, do the COW without a second fault */
-		ret = hugetlb_cow(mm, vma, address, ptep, new_pte, page, ptl);
+		ret = hugetlb_cow(mm, vma, address, ptep, page, ptl);
 	}
 
 	spin_unlock(ptl);

@@ -3822,8 +3824,8 @@ int hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
 
 	if (flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
 		if (!huge_pte_write(entry)) {
-			ret = hugetlb_cow(mm, vma, address, ptep, entry,
-					pagecache_page, ptl);
+			ret = hugetlb_cow(mm, vma, address, ptep,
+					  pagecache_page, ptl);
 			goto out_put_page;
 		}
 		entry = huge_pte_mkdirty(entry);

-- 
2.10.1

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:12:45 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" [off-list ref] wrote:

We cannot use the pte value used in set_pte_at for pte_same comparison,
because archs like ppc64, filter/add new pte flag in set_pte_at. Instead
fetch the pte value inside hugetlb_cow. We are comparing pte value to
make sure the pte didn't change since we dropped the page table lock.
hugetlb_cow get called with page table lock held, and we can take a copy
of the pte value before we drop the page table lock.

With hugetlbfs, we optimize the MAP_PRIVATE write fault path with no
previous mapping (huge_pte_none entries), by forcing a cow in the fault
path. This avoid take an addition fault to covert a read-only mapping
to read/write. Here we were comparing a recently instantiated pte (via
set_pte_at) to the pte values from linux page table. As explained above
on ppc64 such pte_same check returned wrong result, resulting in us
taking an additional fault on ppc64.

From my reading this is a minor performance improvement and a -stable

backport isn't needed.  But it is unclear whether the impact warrants a
4.9 merge.

Please be careful about describing end-user visible impacts when fixing
bugs, thanks.

On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 11:43 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:

We cannot use the pte value used in set_pte_at for pte_same comparison,
because archs like ppc64, filter/add new pte flag in set_pte_at. Instead
fetch the pte value inside hugetlb_cow. We are comparing pte value to
make sure the pte didn't change since we dropped the page table lock.
hugetlb_cow get called with page table lock held, and we can take a copy
of the pte value before we drop the page table lock.

With hugetlbfs, we optimize the MAP_PRIVATE write fault path with no
previous mapping (huge_pte_none entries), by forcing a cow in the fault
path. This avoid take an addition fault to covert a read-only mapping
to read/write. Here we were comparing a recently instantiated pte (via
set_pte_at) to the pte values from linux page table. As explained above
on ppc64 such pte_same check returned wrong result, resulting in us
taking an additional fault on ppc64.

Fixes: 6a119eae942c ("powerpc/mm: Add a _PAGE_PTE bit")

Reported-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <redacted>
---

Acked-by: Hillf Danton <redacted>

Andrew Morton [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:12:45 +0530 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

We cannot use the pte value used in set_pte_at for pte_same comparison,
because archs like ppc64, filter/add new pte flag in set_pte_at. Instead
fetch the pte value inside hugetlb_cow. We are comparing pte value to
make sure the pte didn't change since we dropped the page table lock.
hugetlb_cow get called with page table lock held, and we can take a copy
of the pte value before we drop the page table lock.

With hugetlbfs, we optimize the MAP_PRIVATE write fault path with no
previous mapping (huge_pte_none entries), by forcing a cow in the fault
path. This avoid take an addition fault to covert a read-only mapping
to read/write. Here we were comparing a recently instantiated pte (via
set_pte_at) to the pte values from linux page table. As explained above
on ppc64 such pte_same check returned wrong result, resulting in us
taking an additional fault on ppc64.

From my reading this is a minor performance improvement and a -stable
backport isn't needed.  But it is unclear whether the impact warrants a
4.9 merge.

This patch workaround the issue reported at https://lkml.kernel.org/r/57FF7BB4.1070202@redhat.com
The reason for that OOM was a reserve count accounting issue which
happens in the error path of hugetlb_cow. Not this patch avoid us taking
the error path and hence we don't have the reported OOM.

An actual fix for that issue is being worked on by Mike Kravetz.

Please be careful about describing end-user visible impacts when fixing
bugs, thanks.

-aneesh