Re: [PATCH RFC 04/13] mm/x86: Change pXd_huge() behavior to exclude swap entries

From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
To: peterx@redhat.com
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, x86@kernel.org,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>,
	Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
	sparclinux@vger.kernel.org,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 04/13] mm/x86: Change pXd_huge() behavior to exclude swap entries
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2024 16:16:55 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240307201655.GF9179@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240306104147.193052-5-peterx@redhat.com>

On Wed, Mar 06, 2024 at 06:41:38PM +0800, peterx@redhat.com wrote:
> From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> 
> This patch partly reverts below commits:
> 
> 3a194f3f8ad0 ("mm/hugetlb: make pud_huge() and follow_huge_pud() aware of non-present pud entry")
> cbef8478bee5 ("mm/hugetlb: pmd_huge() returns true for non-present hugepage")
> 
> Right now, pXd_huge() definition across kernel is unclear. We have two
> groups that think differently on swap entries:
> 
>   - x86/sparc:     Allow pXd_huge() to accept swap entries
>   - all the rest:  Doesn't allow pXd_huge() to accept swap entries
> 
> This is so confusing.  Since the sparc helpers seem to be added in 2016,
> which is after x86's (2015), so sparc could have followed a trend.  x86
> proposed such swap handling in 2015 to resolve hugetlb swap entries hit in
> GUP, but now GUP guards swap entries with !pXd_present() in all layers so
> we should be safe.
> 
> We should define this API properly, one way or another, rather than keep
> them defined differently across archs.
> 
> Gut feeling tells me that pXd_huge() shouldn't include swap entries, and it
> turns out that I am not the only one thinking so, the question was raised
> when the current pmd_huge() for x86 was proposed by Ville Syrjälä:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y2WQ7I4LXh8iUIRd@intel.com/
> 
>   I might also be missing something obvious, but why is it even necessary
>   to treat PRESENT==0+PSE==0 as a huge entry?
> 
> It is also questioned when Jason Gunthorpe reviewed the other patchset on
> swap entry handlings:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/20240221125753.GQ13330@nvidia.com/
> 
> Revert its meaning back to original.  It shouldn't have any functional
> change as we should be ready with guards on !pXd_present() explicitly
> everywhere.
> 
> Note that I also dropped the "#if CONFIG_PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2", it was there
> probably because it was breaking things when 3a194f3f8ad0 was proposed,
> according to the report here:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y2LYXItKQyaJTv8j@intel.com/
> 
> Now we shouldn't need that.
> 
> Instead of reverting to _PAGE_PSE raw check, leverage pXd_leaf().
> 
> Cc: Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@nec.com>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/mm/hugetlbpage.c | 18 ++++--------------
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)

I think this is the right thing to do, callers should be more directly
sensitive to swap entries not back into it indirectly from a helper
like this.

Jason