From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
To: Pekka Paalanen <pq@iki.fi>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>,
Stuart Bennett <stuart@freedesktop.org>
Subject: Re: testing pmdval/pteval page presence bit
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:42:56 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <499202F0.10108@goop.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090209215849.5a788261@daedalus.pq.iki.fi>
Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This question is related to mmiotrace which toggles the page presence
> bit to trigger page faults on ioremapped regions. Page faults are used
> to trace MMIO reads and writes of proprietary drivers.
>
> I understood that large pages use pmd's instead of pte's. If there is a
> union like this:
>
> + union {
> + pmdval_t pmdval;
> + pteval_t pteval;
> + } saved; /* stored value prior to arming */
>
> and it is being assigned the proper content, as in the following:
>
> +static int clear_page_present(struct kmmio_fault_page *f, bool clear)
> {
> pteval_t pteval;
> pmdval_t pmdval;
> unsigned int level;
> pmd_t *pmd;
> + pte_t *pte = lookup_address(f->page, &level);
>
> if (!pte) {
> + pr_err("kmmio: no pte for page 0x%08lx\n", f->page);
> return -1;
> }
>
> switch (level) {
> case PG_LEVEL_2M:
> pmd = (pmd_t *)pte;
> + if (clear) {
> + f->saved.pmdval = pmd_val(*pmd);
> + pmdval = f->saved.pmdval & ~_PAGE_PRESENT;
> + } else
> + pmdval = f->saved.pmdval;
> set_pmd(pmd, __pmd(pmdval));
> break;
>
> case PG_LEVEL_4K:
> + if (clear) {
> + f->saved.pteval = pte_val(*pte);
> + pteval = f->saved.pteval & ~_PAGE_PRESENT;
> + } else
> + pteval = f->saved.pteval;
> set_pte_atomic(pte, __pte(pteval));
> break;
>
>
> Then regardless of was it pmdval or pteval being set, the test
>
> if (!(faultpage->saved.pteval & _PAGE_PRESENT))
>
> should be ok. But is it?
> Can large page (pmd) presence be handled just like a normal page (pte)?
>
_PAGE_PRESENT is meaningful for both ptes and pmds; you can use
pmd_present() to test for it rather than open-coding it.
But there's one other theoretical problem with this code. In general it
isn't safe to just toggle the _PAGE_PRESENT bit on its own, because the
rest of the non-present pte could get interpreted as a swap entry. If
you're guaranteed that these are kernel mappings then there's no problem
in practice.
J
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-02-10 22:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-02-09 19:58 testing pmdval/pteval page presence bit Pekka Paalanen
2009-02-10 22:42 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge [this message]
2009-02-11 18:08 ` Pekka Paalanen
2009-02-11 18:51 ` Jeremy Fitzhardinge
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=499202F0.10108@goop.org \
--to=jeremy@goop.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=pq@iki.fi \
--cc=stuart@freedesktop.org \
--cc=vegard.nossum@gmail.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.