Re: [PATCH] mm: pmd dirty emulation in page fault handler

["Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>]

On Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 08:48:21AM +0900, Minchan Kim wrote:
> Andreas reported [1] made a test in jemalloc hang in THP mode in arm64.

I guess you wanted put b8d3c4c3009d before [1], right?

> http://lkml.kernel.org/r/mvmmvfy37g1.fsf@hawking.suse.de
> 
> The problem is page fault handler supports only accessed flag emulation
> for THP page of SW-dirty/accessed architecture.
> 
> This patch enables dirty-bit emulation for those architectures.
> Without it, MADV_FREE makes application hang by repeated fault forever.
> 
> [1] mm/huge_memory.c: don't split THP page when MADV_FREE syscall is called
> 
> Cc: Jason Evans <je@fb.com>
> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
> Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>
> Cc: linux-arch@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
> Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> [4.5+]
> Fixes: b8d3c4c3009d ("mm/huge_memory.c: don't split THP page when MADV_FREE syscall is called")
> Reported-by: Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de>
> Signed-off-by: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>
> ---
>  mm/huge_memory.c |  6 ++++--
>  mm/memory.c      | 18 ++++++++++--------
>  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
> index 10eedbf..29ec8a4 100644
> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
> @@ -883,15 +883,17 @@ void huge_pmd_set_accessed(struct vm_fault *vmf, pmd_t orig_pmd)
>  {
>  	pmd_t entry;
>  	unsigned long haddr;
> +	bool write = vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
>  
>  	vmf->ptl = pmd_lock(vmf->vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
>  	if (unlikely(!pmd_same(*vmf->pmd, orig_pmd)))
>  		goto unlock;
>  
>  	entry = pmd_mkyoung(orig_pmd);
> +	if (write)
> +		entry = pmd_mkdirty(entry);
>  	haddr = vmf->address & HPAGE_PMD_MASK;
> -	if (pmdp_set_access_flags(vmf->vma, haddr, vmf->pmd, entry,
> -				vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE))
> +	if (pmdp_set_access_flags(vmf->vma, haddr, vmf->pmd, entry, write))
>  		update_mmu_cache_pmd(vmf->vma, vmf->address, vmf->pmd);
>  
>  unlock:
> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> index 36c774f..7408ddc 100644
> --- a/mm/memory.c
> +++ b/mm/memory.c
> @@ -3637,18 +3637,20 @@ static int __handle_mm_fault(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>  			if (pmd_protnone(orig_pmd) && vma_is_accessible(vma))
>  				return do_huge_pmd_numa_page(&vmf, orig_pmd);
>  
> -			if ((vmf.flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) &&
> -					!pmd_write(orig_pmd)) {
> -				ret = wp_huge_pmd(&vmf, orig_pmd);
> -				if (!(ret & VM_FAULT_FALLBACK))
> +			if (vmf.flags & FAULT_FLAG_WRITE) {
> +				if (!pmd_write(orig_pmd)) {
> +					ret = wp_huge_pmd(&vmf, orig_pmd);
> +					if (ret == VM_FAULT_FALLBACK)

In theory, more than one flag can be set and it would lead to
false-negative. Bit check was the right thing.

And I don't understand why do you need to change code in
__handle_mm_fault() at all.
From what I see change to huge_pmd_set_accessed() should be enough.

> +						goto pte_fault;
>  					return ret;
> -			} else {
> -				huge_pmd_set_accessed(&vmf, orig_pmd);
> -				return 0;
> +				}
>  			}
> +
> +			huge_pmd_set_accessed(&vmf, orig_pmd);
> +			return 0;
>  		}
>  	}
> -
> +pte_fault:
>  	return handle_pte_fault(&vmf);
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.7.4
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
> the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
> see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
> Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>