Re: [PATCH v10 3/6] fs/proc/task_mmu: Implement IOCTL to get and/or the clear info about PTEs

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Wed, Feb 15, 2023 at 03:03:09PM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 2/15/23 1:59 AM, Peter Xu wrote:
> [..]
> >>>> static inline bool is_pte_written(pte_t pte)
> >>>> {
> >>>> 	if ((pte_present(pte) && pte_uffd_wp(pte)) ||
> >>>> 	    (pte_swp_uffd_wp_any(pte)))
> >>>> 		return false;
> >>>> 	return (pte_present(pte) || is_swap_pte(pte));
> >>>> }
> >>>
> >>> Could you explain why you don't want to return dirty for !present?  A page
> >>> can be written then swapped out.  Don't you want to know that happened
> >>> (from dirty tracking POV)?
> >>>
> >>> The code looks weird to me too..  We only have three types of ptes: (1)
> >>> present, (2) swap, (3) none.
> >>>
> >>> Then, "(pte_present() || is_swap_pte())" is the same as !pte_none().  Is
> >>> that what you're really looking for?
> >> Yes, this is what I've been trying to do. I'll use !pte_none() to make it
> >> simpler.
> > 
> > Ah I think I see what you wanted to do now.. But I'm afraid it won't work
> > for all cases.
> > 
> > So IIUC the problem is anon pte can be empty, but since uffd-wp bit doesn't
> > persist on anon (but none) ptes, then we got it lost and we cannot identify
> > it from pages being written.  Your solution will solve problem for
> > anonymous, but I think it'll break file memories.
> > 
> > Example:
> > 
> > Consider one shmem page that got mapped, write protected (using UFFDIO_WP
> > ioctl), written again (removing uffd-wp bit automatically), then zapped.
> > The pte will be pte_none() but it's actually written, afaiu.
> > 
> > Maybe it's time we should introduce UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ZEROPAGE, so we'll need
> > to install pte markers for anonymous too (then it will work similarly like
> > shmem/hugetlbfs, that we'll report writting to zero pages), then you'll
> > need to have the new UFFD_FEATURE_WP_ASYNC depend on it.  With that I think
> > you can keep using the old check and it should start to work.
> > 
> > Please let me know if my understanding is correct above.
> Thank you for identifying it. Your understanding seems on point. I'll have
> research things up about PTE Markers. I'm looking at your patches about it
> [1]. Can you refer me to "mm alignment sessions" discussion in form of
> presentation or if any transcript is available?

No worry now, after a second thought I think zero page is better than pte
markers, and I've got a patch that works for it here by injecting zero
pages for anonymous:

https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230215210257.224243-1-peterx@redhat.com/

I think we'd also better to enforce your new WP_ASYNC feature bit to depend
on this one, so fail the UFFDIO_API if WP_ASYNC && !WP_ZEROPAGE.

Could you please try by rebasing your work upon this one?  Hope it'll work
for you already.  Note again that you'll need to go back to the old
is_pte|pmd_written() to make things work always, I think.

[...]

> I truly understand how you feel about export_prev_to_out(). It is really
> difficult to understand. Even I had to made a hard try to come up with the
> current code to avoid consuming a lot of kernel's memory while giving user
> the compact output. I can surely map both of these with a dirty looking
> macro. But I'm unable to find a decent macro to replace these. I think I'll
> put a comment some where to explain whats going-on.

So maybe I still missed something? I'll read the new version when it comes.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu