All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: will.deacon@arm.com (Will Deacon)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: hugetlb: Fix huge_pte_offset to return poisoned page table entries
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:41:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170607154111.GA2669@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h8zr24qb.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:32:28PM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:30:37PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 02:47:32PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:23:34PM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> >> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> > > @@ -136,36 +136,27 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
> >> > >  {
> >> > >  	pgd_t *pgd;
> >> > >  	pud_t *pud;
> >> > > -	pmd_t *pmd = NULL;
> >> > > -	pte_t *pte = NULL;
> >> > > +	pmd_t *pmd;
> >> > >  
> >> > >  	pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
> >> > >  	pr_debug("%s: addr:0x%lx pgd:%p\n", __func__, addr, pgd);
> >> > >  	if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
> >> > >  		return NULL;
> >> > > +
> >> > >  	pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
> >> > > -	if (!pud_present(*pud))
> >> > > +	if (pud_none(*pud))
> >> > >  		return NULL;
> >> > 
> >> > Do you actually need this special case?
> >> > 
> >> > > -
> >> > > -	if (pud_huge(*pud))
> >> > > +	/* swap or huge page */
> >> > > +	if (!pud_present(*pud) || pud_huge(*pud))
> >> > 
> >> > ... couldn't you just add a '|| pud_none(*pud)' in here?
> >> > 
> 
> I think an earlier version took this approach but...
> 
> >> > >  		return (pte_t *)pud;
> >> 
> >> But then you no longer return NULL if *pud == 0.
> >
> > Does that actually matter? The bits of hugetlb code I looked at will
> > deferenced the returned pud and handle the huge_pte_none case correctly.
> 
> For hugetlb fault handling (hugetlb_fault()), returning NULL vs pointer
> to the pud/pmd results in different behaviour. If we return the pud when
> pud_none(), then we lose the resulting hugepage size check we get from
> huge_pte_alloc().

Ok, so does that mean that many of the huge_pte_none checks in mm/hugetlb.c
that operate on a huge_ptep_get of non-NULL output from huge_pte_offset are
actually redundant?

Will

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com>
To: Punit Agrawal <punit.agrawal@arm.com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	David Woods <dwoods@mellanox.com>,
	steve.capper@arm.com, tbaicar@codeaurora.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, manoj.iyer@canonical.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: hugetlb: Fix huge_pte_offset to return poisoned page table entries
Date: Wed, 7 Jun 2017 16:41:11 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170607154111.GA2669@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87h8zr24qb.fsf@e105922-lin.cambridge.arm.com>

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 04:32:28PM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> Will Deacon <will.deacon@arm.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 03:30:37PM +0100, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 02:47:32PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
> >> > On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 04:23:34PM +0100, Punit Agrawal wrote:
> >> > > --- a/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> > > +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/hugetlbpage.c
> >> > > @@ -136,36 +136,27 @@ pte_t *huge_pte_offset(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
> >> > >  {
> >> > >  	pgd_t *pgd;
> >> > >  	pud_t *pud;
> >> > > -	pmd_t *pmd = NULL;
> >> > > -	pte_t *pte = NULL;
> >> > > +	pmd_t *pmd;
> >> > >  
> >> > >  	pgd = pgd_offset(mm, addr);
> >> > >  	pr_debug("%s: addr:0x%lx pgd:%p\n", __func__, addr, pgd);
> >> > >  	if (!pgd_present(*pgd))
> >> > >  		return NULL;
> >> > > +
> >> > >  	pud = pud_offset(pgd, addr);
> >> > > -	if (!pud_present(*pud))
> >> > > +	if (pud_none(*pud))
> >> > >  		return NULL;
> >> > 
> >> > Do you actually need this special case?
> >> > 
> >> > > -
> >> > > -	if (pud_huge(*pud))
> >> > > +	/* swap or huge page */
> >> > > +	if (!pud_present(*pud) || pud_huge(*pud))
> >> > 
> >> > ... couldn't you just add a '|| pud_none(*pud)' in here?
> >> > 
> 
> I think an earlier version took this approach but...
> 
> >> > >  		return (pte_t *)pud;
> >> 
> >> But then you no longer return NULL if *pud == 0.
> >
> > Does that actually matter? The bits of hugetlb code I looked at will
> > deferenced the returned pud and handle the huge_pte_none case correctly.
> 
> For hugetlb fault handling (hugetlb_fault()), returning NULL vs pointer
> to the pud/pmd results in different behaviour. If we return the pud when
> pud_none(), then we lose the resulting hugepage size check we get from
> huge_pte_alloc().

Ok, so does that mean that many of the huge_pte_none checks in mm/hugetlb.c
that operate on a huge_ptep_get of non-NULL output from huge_pte_offset are
actually redundant?

Will

  reply	other threads:[~2017-06-07 15:41 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2017-05-17 15:23 [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Add support for handling memory corruption Punit Agrawal
2017-05-17 15:23 ` Punit Agrawal
2017-05-17 15:23 ` [PATCH v2 1/3] arm64: hugetlb: Fix huge_pte_offset to return poisoned page table entries Punit Agrawal
2017-05-17 15:23   ` Punit Agrawal
2017-06-07 13:47   ` Will Deacon
2017-06-07 13:47     ` Will Deacon
2017-06-07 14:30     ` Catalin Marinas
2017-06-07 14:30       ` Catalin Marinas
2017-06-07 14:57       ` Will Deacon
2017-06-07 14:57         ` Will Deacon
2017-06-07 15:32         ` Punit Agrawal
2017-06-07 15:32           ` Punit Agrawal
2017-06-07 15:41           ` Will Deacon [this message]
2017-06-07 15:41             ` Will Deacon
2017-06-08 16:28             ` Punit Agrawal
2017-06-08 16:28               ` Punit Agrawal
2017-06-07 16:54           ` Catalin Marinas
2017-06-07 16:54             ` Catalin Marinas
2017-06-07 14:58   ` Catalin Marinas
2017-06-07 14:58     ` Catalin Marinas
2017-05-17 15:23 ` [PATCH v2 2/3] arm64: hwpoison: add VM_FAULT_HWPOISON[_LARGE] handling Punit Agrawal
2017-05-17 15:23   ` Punit Agrawal
2017-06-07 13:59   ` Will Deacon
2017-06-07 13:59     ` Will Deacon
2017-06-07 17:47     ` Punit Agrawal
2017-06-07 17:47       ` Punit Agrawal
2017-05-17 15:23 ` [PATCH v2 3/3] arm64: kconfig: allow support for memory failure handling Punit Agrawal
2017-05-17 15:23   ` Punit Agrawal
     [not found] ` <1495081650.3981.15@smtp.canonical.com>
2017-05-18 10:27   ` [PATCH v2 0/3] arm64: Add support for handling memory corruption Punit Agrawal
2017-05-18 10:27     ` Punit Agrawal

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=20170607154111.GA2669@arm.com \
    --to=will.deacon@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.