All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: catalin.marinas@arm.com (Catalin Marinas)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH 0/3] Simplify set_huge_pte_at, pte_same for LPAE
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2013 15:09:25 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20131203150924.GE12370@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20131203134623.GA24994@linaro.org>

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:46:24PM +0000, Steve Capper wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 05:35:26PM +0000, Steve Capper wrote:
> > The following patch series is my attempt at fixing a rather nasty bug
> > which became visible in 3.12-rc1 when running the libhugetlbfs test
> > suite. (This problem only just came to my attention yesterday).
> > 
> > For LPAE, set_huge_pte_at calls set_pte_at which then calls
> > set_pte_ext, which in turn is wired up to call cpu_v7_set_pte_ext,
> > which is defined in proc-v7-3level.S.
> > 
> > For huge pages, given newprot a pgprot_t value for a shared writable
> > VMA, and ptep a pointer to a pte belonging to this VMA; the following
> > behaviour is assumed by core code:
> >    hugetlb_change_protection(vma, address, end, newprot);
> >    ...
> > 
> >    huge_pte_write(huge_ptep_get(ptep)); /* should be true! */
> > 
> > Unfortunately, cpu_v7_set_pte_ext will change the bit layout of the
> > resultant pte, and will set the read only bit if the dirty bit is not
> > also enabled.
> 
> A question has been raised for the arm64 analogue of this series as to
> whether or not this is the best approach:
> http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-arm-kernel/2013-November/215155.html
> 
> I am having a think about this, and will send out a V2 once my brain
> has caught up. :-)

I think we first need to check we don't actually do a CoW for any clean
anonymous small page just because pte_dirty and pte_write use the same
PTE_RDONLY bit (both arm+LPAE and arm64). Once that's fixed, I don't
think you need any hugetlb changes.

Basically we need to encode these states:

				PTE_DIRTY	PTE_RDONLY
!pte_dirty && !pte_write	0		1
!pte_dirty && pte_write		0		1
pte_dirty && !pte_write		1		1
pte_dirty && pte_write		1		0

So we can't distinguish between the first two with just two bits since
PTE_RDONLY is a hardware bit.

My proposal would be for PTE_WRITE bit with PTE_RDONLY only set in the
set_pte() function (if !pte_dirty || !pte_write).

-- 
Catalin

      reply	other threads:[~2013-12-03 15:09 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-11-19 17:35 [PATCH 0/3] Simplify set_huge_pte_at, pte_same for LPAE Steve Capper
2013-11-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 1/3] ARM: mm: Rewire LPAE set_huge_pte_at Steve Capper
2013-11-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 2/3] ARM: mm: Make LPAE huge page ptes NG by default Steve Capper
2013-11-19 17:35 ` [PATCH 3/3] Revert "ARM: mm: correct pte_same behaviour for LPAE." Steve Capper
2013-11-19 18:02 ` [PATCH 0/3] Simplify set_huge_pte_at, pte_same for LPAE Christoffer Dall
2013-12-03 13:46 ` Steve Capper
2013-12-03 15:09   ` Catalin Marinas [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20131203150924.GE12370@arm.com \
    --to=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.