From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/migrate: properly preserve write attribute in special migrate entry
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:03:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180403230336.GH5935@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180403153046.88cae4ab18646e8e23a648ce@linux-foundation.org>
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:30:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 22:35:06 -0400 jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
>
> > From: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>
> >
> > Use of pte_write(pte) is only valid for present pte, the common code
> > which set the migration entry can be reach for both valid present
> > pte and special swap entry (for device memory). Fix the code to use
> > the mpfn value which properly handle both cases.
> >
> > On x86 this did not have any bad side effect because pte write bit
> > is below PAGE_BIT_GLOBAL and thus special swap entry have it set to
> > 0 which in turn means we were always creating read only special
> > migration entry.
>
> Does this mean that the patch only affects behaviour of non-x86 systems?
No it affect x86 as explained below (ie it forces a second page fault).
>
> > So once migration did finish we always write protected the CPU page
> > table entry (moreover this is only an issue when migrating from device
> > memory to system memory). End effect is that CPU write access would
> > fault again and restore write permission.
>
> That sounds a bit serious. Was a -stable backport considered?
Like discuss previously with Michal, for lack of upstream user yet
(and PowerPC users of this code are not upstream either yet AFAIK).
Once i get HMM inside nouveau upstream, i will evaluate if people
wants all fixes to be back ported to stable.
Finaly this one isn't too bad, it just burn CPU cycles by forcing
CPU to take a second fault on write access ie double fault the same
address. There is no corruption or incorrect states (it behave as
a COWed page from a fork with a mapcount of 1).
Do you still want me to be more aggressive with stable backport ?
I don't mind either way. I expect to get HMM nouveau upstream over
next couple release cycle.
Cheers,
Jerome
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/migrate: properly preserve write attribute in special migrate entry
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:03:36 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180403230336.GH5935@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180403153046.88cae4ab18646e8e23a648ce@linux-foundation.org>
On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:30:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 22:35:06 -0400 jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
>
> > From: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@nvidia.com>
> >
> > Use of pte_write(pte) is only valid for present pte, the common code
> > which set the migration entry can be reach for both valid present
> > pte and special swap entry (for device memory). Fix the code to use
> > the mpfn value which properly handle both cases.
> >
> > On x86 this did not have any bad side effect because pte write bit
> > is below PAGE_BIT_GLOBAL and thus special swap entry have it set to
> > 0 which in turn means we were always creating read only special
> > migration entry.
>
> Does this mean that the patch only affects behaviour of non-x86 systems?
No it affect x86 as explained below (ie it forces a second page fault).
>
> > So once migration did finish we always write protected the CPU page
> > table entry (moreover this is only an issue when migrating from device
> > memory to system memory). End effect is that CPU write access would
> > fault again and restore write permission.
>
> That sounds a bit serious. Was a -stable backport considered?
Like discuss previously with Michal, for lack of upstream user yet
(and PowerPC users of this code are not upstream either yet AFAIK).
Once i get HMM inside nouveau upstream, i will evaluate if people
wants all fixes to be back ported to stable.
Finaly this one isn't too bad, it just burn CPU cycles by forcing
CPU to take a second fault on write access ie double fault the same
address. There is no corruption or incorrect states (it behave as
a COWed page from a fork with a mapcount of 1).
Do you still want me to be more aggressive with stable backport ?
I don't mind either way. I expect to get HMM nouveau upstream over
next couple release cycle.
Cheers,
Jérôme
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-04-03 23:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-04-02 2:35 [PATCH] mm/migrate: properly preserve write attribute in special migrate entry jglisse
2018-04-02 2:35 ` jglisse
2018-04-03 22:30 ` Andrew Morton
2018-04-03 23:03 ` Jerome Glisse [this message]
2018-04-03 23:03 ` Jerome Glisse
2018-04-03 23:45 ` Andrew Morton
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=20180403230336.GH5935@redhat.com \
--to=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
/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.