Re: [PATCH 06/19] mm/pagewalk: Check pfnmap early for folio_walk_start()

Peter Xu
2024-08-09T21:37:21Z

On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 07:25:36PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 09.08.24 18:54, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 06:20:06PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > On 09.08.24 18:08, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > Pfnmaps can always be identified with special bits in the ptes/pmds/puds.
> > > > However that's unnecessary if the vma is stable, and when it's mapped under
> > > > VM_PFNMAP | VM_IO.
> > > >
> > > > Instead of adding similar checks in all the levels for huge pfnmaps, let
> > > > folio_walk_start() fail even earlier for these mappings. It's also
> > > > something gup-slow already does, so make them match.
> > > >
> > > > Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > mm/pagewalk.c | 5 +++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/pagewalk.c b/mm/pagewalk.c
> > > > index cd79fb3b89e5..fd3965efe773 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/pagewalk.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/pagewalk.c
> > > > @@ -727,6 +727,11 @@ struct folio *folio_walk_start(struct folio_walk *fw,
> > > > p4d_t *p4dp;
> > > > mmap_assert_locked(vma->vm_mm);
> > > > +
> > > > + /* It has no folio backing the mappings at all.. */
> > > > + if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_IO | VM_PFNMAP))
> > > > + return NULL;
> > > > +
> > >
> > > That is in general not what we want, and we still have some places that
> > > wrongly hard-code that behavior.
> > >
> > > In a MAP_PRIVATE mapping you might have anon pages that we can happily walk.
> > >
> > > vm_normal_page() / vm_normal_page_pmd() [and as commented as a TODO,
> > > vm_normal_page_pud()] should be able to identify PFN maps and reject them,
> > > no?
> >
> > Yep, I think we can also rely on special bit.
> >
> > When I was working on this whole series I must confess I am already
> > confused on the real users of MAP_PRIVATE pfnmaps. E.g. we probably don't
> > need either PFNMAP for either mprotect/fork/... at least for our use case,
> > then VM_PRIVATE is even one step further.
>
> Yes, it's rather a corner case indeed.
> >
> > Here I chose to follow gup-slow, and I suppose you meant that's also wrong?
>
> I assume just nobody really noticed, just like nobody noticed that
> walk_page_test() skips VM_PFNMAP (but not VM_IO :) ).

I noticed it, and that's one of the reasons why this series can be small,
as walk page callers are intact.

>
> Your process memory stats will likely miss anon folios on COW PFNMAP
> mappings ... in the rare cases where they exist (e.g., mmap() of /dev/mem).

Do you mean /proc/$PID/status? I thought that (aka, mm counters) should be
fine with anon pages CoWed on top of private pfnmaps, but possibly I
misunderstood what you meant.

>
> > If so, would it make sense we keep them aligned as of now, and change them
> > altogether? Or do you think we should just rely on the special bits?
>
> GUP already refuses to work on a lot of other stuff, so likely not a good
> use of time unless somebody complains.
>
> But yes, long-term we should make all code either respect that it could
> happen (and bury less awkward checks in page table walkers) or rip support
> for MAP_PRIVATE PFNMAP out completely.
>
> >
> > And, just curious: is there any use case you're aware of that can benefit
> > from caring PRIVATE pfnmaps yet so far, especially in this path?
>
> In general MAP_PRIVATE pfnmaps is not really useful on things like MMIO.
>
> There was a discussion (in VM_PAT) some time ago whether we could remove
> MAP_PRIVATE PFNMAPs completely [1]. At least some users still use COW
> mappings on /dev/mem, although not many (and they might not actually write
> to these areas).

Ah, looks like the private map on /dev/mem is the only thing we know.

>
> I'm happy if someone wants to try ripping that out, I'm not brave enough :)
>
> [1]
> https://lkml.kernel.org/r/1f2a8ed4-aaff-4be7-b3b6-63d2841a2908@redhat.com
>
> >
> > As far as I read, none of folio_walk_start() users so far should even
> > stumble on top of a pfnmap, share or private. But that's a fairly quick
> > glimps only.
>
> do_pages_stat()->do_pages_stat_array() should be able to trigger it, if you
> pass "nodes=NULL" to move_pages().

.. so assume this is also about private mapping over /dev/mem, then:
someone tries to write some pages there to some MMIO regions, then tries to
use move_pages() to fetch which node those pages locate? Hmm.. OK :)

>
> Maybe s390x could be tricked into it, but likely as you say, most code
> shouldn't trigger it. The function itself should be handling it correctly as
> of today, though.

So indeed I cannot justify it won't be used, and it's not a huge deal
indeed if we stick with special bits. Let me go with that in the next
version for folio_walk_start().

Thanks,

--
Peter Xu