Re: [PATCH v1 3/9] mm/memory: further separate anon and pagecache folio handling in zap_present_pte()

David Hildenbrand
2024-01-30T08:37:18Z

On 30.01.24 09:31, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 29/01/2024 14:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> We don't need up-to-date accessed-dirty information for anon folios and can
>> simply work with the ptent we already have. Also, we know the RSS counter
>> we want to update.
>>
>> We can safely move arch_check_zapped_pte() + tlb_remove_tlb_entry() +
>> zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed() after updating the folio and RSS.
>>
>> While at it, only call zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed() if there is even
>> any chance that pte_install_uffd_wp_if_needed() would do *something*.
>> That is, just don't bother if uffd-wp does not apply.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> mm/memory.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>> index 69502cdc0a7d..20bc13ab8db2 100644
>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>> @@ -1552,12 +1552,9 @@ static inline void zap_present_pte(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>> folio = page_folio(page);
>> if (unlikely(!should_zap_folio(details, folio)))
>> return;
>> - ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
>> - arch_check_zapped_pte(vma, ptent);
>> - tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
>> - zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(vma, addr, pte, details, ptent);
>>
>> if (!folio_test_anon(folio)) {
>> + ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
>> if (pte_dirty(ptent)) {
>> folio_mark_dirty(folio);
>> if (tlb_delay_rmap(tlb)) {
>> @@ -1567,8 +1564,17 @@ static inline void zap_present_pte(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>> }
>> if (pte_young(ptent) && likely(vma_has_recency(vma)))
>> folio_mark_accessed(folio);
>> + rss[mm_counter(folio)]--;
>> + } else {
>> + /* We don't need up-to-date accessed/dirty bits. */
>> + ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
>> + rss[MM_ANONPAGES]--;
>> }
>> - rss[mm_counter(folio)]--;
>> + arch_check_zapped_pte(vma, ptent);
>
> Isn't the x86 (only) implementation of this relying on the dirty bit? So doesn't
> that imply you still need get_and_clear for anon? (And in hindsight I think that
> logic would apply to the previous patch too?)

x86 uses the encoding !writable && dirty to indicate special shadow
stacks. That is, the hw dirty bit is set by software (to create that
combination), not by hardware.

So you don't have to sync against any hw changes of the hw dirty bit.
What you had in the original PTE you read is sufficient.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb