From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-qt0-f199.google.com (mail-qt0-f199.google.com [209.85.216.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 630726B71F1 for ; Wed, 5 Sep 2018 03:30:56 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-qt0-f199.google.com with SMTP id q26-v6so7037945qtj.14 for ; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:30:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com. [66.187.233.73]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v8-v6si809811qtp.169.2018.09.05.00.30.55 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 05 Sep 2018 00:30:55 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 15:30:37 +0800 From: Peter Xu Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: hugepage: mark splitted page dirty when needed Message-ID: <20180905073037.GA23021@xz-x1> References: <20180904075510.22338-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20180904080115.o2zj4mlo7yzjdqfl@kshutemo-mobl1> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Zi Yan , "Kirill A. Shutemov" Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Huang Ying , Dan Williams , Naoya Horiguchi , =?utf-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWU=?= Glisse , "Aneesh Kumar K.V" , Konstantin Khlebnikov , Souptick Joarder , linux-mm@kvack.org On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 10:00:28AM -0400, Zi Yan wrote: > On 4 Sep 2018, at 4:01, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 04, 2018 at 03:55:10PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > >> When splitting a huge page, we should set all small pages as dirty if > >> the original huge page has the dirty bit set before. Otherwise we'll > >> lose the original dirty bit. > > > > We don't lose it. It got transfered to struct page flag: > > > > if (pmd_dirty(old_pmd)) > > SetPageDirty(page); > > > > Plus, when split_huge_page_to_list() splits a THP, its subroutine __split_huge_page() > propagates the dirty bit in the head page flag to all subpages in __split_huge_page_tail(). Hi, Kirill, Zi, Thanks for your responses! Though in my test the huge page seems to be splitted not by split_huge_page_to_list() but by explicit calls to change_protection(). The stack looks like this (again, this is a customized kernel, and I added an explicit dump_stack() there): kernel: dump_stack+0x5c/0x7b kernel: __split_huge_pmd+0x192/0xdc0 kernel: ? update_load_avg+0x8b/0x550 kernel: ? update_load_avg+0x8b/0x550 kernel: ? account_entity_enqueue+0xc5/0xf0 kernel: ? enqueue_entity+0x112/0x650 kernel: change_protection+0x3a2/0xab0 kernel: mwriteprotect_range+0xdd/0x110 kernel: userfaultfd_ioctl+0x50b/0x1210 kernel: ? do_futex+0x2cf/0xb20 kernel: ? tty_write+0x1d2/0x2f0 kernel: ? do_vfs_ioctl+0x9f/0x610 kernel: do_vfs_ioctl+0x9f/0x610 kernel: ? __x64_sys_futex+0x88/0x180 kernel: ksys_ioctl+0x70/0x80 kernel: __x64_sys_ioctl+0x16/0x20 kernel: do_syscall_64+0x55/0x150 kernel: entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9 At the very time the userspace is sending an UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT ioctl to kernel space, which is handled by mwriteprotect_range(). In case you'd like to refer to the kernel, it's basically this one from Andrea's (with very trivial changes): https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/andrea/aa.git userfault So... do we have two paths to split the huge pages separately? Another (possibly very naive) question is: could any of you hint me how the page dirty bit is finally applied to the PTEs? These two dirty flags confused me for a few days already (the SetPageDirty() one which sets the page dirty flag, and the pte_mkdirty() which sets that onto the real PTEs). Regards, -- Peter Xu