Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: add missing PTE_SPECIAL in pte_mkdevmap on arm64

Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: add missing PTE_SPECIAL in pte_mkdevmap on arm64

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 08/08/2019 11:50 AM, Justin He (Arm Technology China) wrote:
> Hi Anshuman
> Thanks for the comments, please see my comments below
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
>> Sent: 2019年8月8日 13:19
>> To: Justin He (Arm Technology China) <Justin.He@arm.com>; Catalin
>> Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>; Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>;
>> Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>; James Morse
>> <James.Morse@arm.com>
>> Cc: Christoffer Dall <Christoffer.Dall@arm.com>; Punit Agrawal
>> <punitagrawal@gmail.com>; Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>; Jun Yao
>> <yaojun8558363@gmail.com>; Alex Van Brunt <avanbrunt@nvidia.com>;
>> Robin Murphy <Robin.Murphy@arm.com>; Thomas Gleixner
>> <tglx@linutronix.de>; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-
>> kernel@vger.kernel.org
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH] arm64: mm: add missing PTE_SPECIAL in
>> pte_mkdevmap on arm64
>>
> [...]
>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> index 5fdcfe237338..e09760ece844 100644
>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>>> @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ static inline pmd_t pmd_mkcont(pmd_t pmd)
>>>
>>>  static inline pte_t pte_mkdevmap(pte_t pte)
>>>  {
>>> -	return set_pte_bit(pte, __pgprot(PTE_DEVMAP));
>>> +	return set_pte_bit(pte, __pgprot(PTE_DEVMAP | PTE_SPECIAL));
>>>  }
>>>
>>>  static inline void set_pte(pte_t *ptep, pte_t pte)
>>> @@ -396,7 +396,10 @@ static inline int pmd_protnone(pmd_t pmd)
>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
>>>  #define pmd_devmap(pmd)		pte_devmap(pmd_pte(pmd))
>>>  #endif
>>> -#define pmd_mkdevmap(pmd)
>> 	pte_pmd(pte_mkdevmap(pmd_pte(pmd)))
>>> +static inline pmd_t pmd_mkdevmap(pmd_t pmd)
>>> +{
>>> +	return pte_pmd(set_pte_bit(pmd_pte(pmd),
>> __pgprot(PTE_DEVMAP)));
>>> +}
>>
>> Though I could see other platforms like powerpc and x86 following same
>> approach (DEVMAP + SPECIAL) for pte so that it checks positive for
>> pte_special() but then just DEVMAP for pmd which could never have a
>> pmd_special(). But a more fundamental question is - why should a devmap
>> be a special pte as well ?
> 
> IIUC, special pte bit make things handling easier compare with those arches which
> have no special bit. The memory codes will regard devmap page as a special one 
> compared with normal page.

For that we have PTE_DEVMAP on arm64 which differentiates device memory
entries from others and it should not again need PTE_SPECIAL as well for
that. We set both bits while creating the entries with pte_mkdevmap()
and check just one bit PTE_DEVMAP with pte_devmap(). Problem is it will
also test positive for pte_special() and risks being identified as one.

> Devmap page structure can be stored in ram/pmem/none.

That is altogether a different aspect which is handled with vmem_altmap
during hotplug and nothing to do with how device memory is mapped in the
page table. I am not sure about "none" though. IIUC unlike traditional
device pfn all ZONE_DEVICE memory will have struct page backing either
on system RAM or in the device memory itself.

> 
>>
>> Also in vm_normal_page() why cannot it tests for pte_devmap() before it
>> starts looking for CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL. Is this the only path
>> for
> 
> AFAICT, yes, but it changes to much besides arm codes. 😊

If this is the only path for which all platforms have to set PTE_SPECIAL
in their device mapping, then it should just be fixed in vm_normal_page().

> 
>> which we need to set SPECIAL bit on a devmap pte or there are other paths
>> where this semantics is assumed ?
> 
> No idea

Probably something to be asked in the mm community.

1. Why pte_mkdevmap() should set SPECIAL bit for a positive pte_special()
   check. Why the same mapping be identified as pte_devmap() as well as
   pte_special().

2. Can pte_devmap() and pte_special() re-ordering at vm_normal_page() will
   remove this dependency or there are other commons MM paths which assume
   this behavior ?

+ linux-mm@kvack.org <linux-mm@kvack.org>
+ Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
+ Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
+ Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>
+ Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>