From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755712AbeDCXDj (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:03:39 -0400 Received: from mx3-rdu2.redhat.com ([66.187.233.73]:47546 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754297AbeDCXDi (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:03:38 -0400 Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2018 19:03:36 -0400 From: Jerome Glisse To: Andrew Morton Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Ralph Campbell Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/migrate: properly preserve write attribute in special migrate entry Message-ID: <20180403230336.GH5935@redhat.com> References: <20180402023506.12180-1-jglisse@redhat.com> <20180403153046.88cae4ab18646e8e23a648ce@linux-foundation.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20180403153046.88cae4ab18646e8e23a648ce@linux-foundation.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.2 (2017-12-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 03:30:46PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Sun, 1 Apr 2018 22:35:06 -0400 jglisse@redhat.com wrote: > > > From: Ralph Campbell > > > > Use of pte_write(pte) is only valid for present pte, the common code > > which set the migration entry can be reach for both valid present > > pte and special swap entry (for device memory). Fix the code to use > > the mpfn value which properly handle both cases. > > > > On x86 this did not have any bad side effect because pte write bit > > is below PAGE_BIT_GLOBAL and thus special swap entry have it set to > > 0 which in turn means we were always creating read only special > > migration entry. > > Does this mean that the patch only affects behaviour of non-x86 systems? No it affect x86 as explained below (ie it forces a second page fault). > > > So once migration did finish we always write protected the CPU page > > table entry (moreover this is only an issue when migrating from device > > memory to system memory). End effect is that CPU write access would > > fault again and restore write permission. > > That sounds a bit serious. Was a -stable backport considered? Like discuss previously with Michal, for lack of upstream user yet (and PowerPC users of this code are not upstream either yet AFAIK). Once i get HMM inside nouveau upstream, i will evaluate if people wants all fixes to be back ported to stable. Finaly this one isn't too bad, it just burn CPU cycles by forcing CPU to take a second fault on write access ie double fault the same address. There is no corruption or incorrect states (it behave as a COWed page from a fork with a mapcount of 1). Do you still want me to be more aggressive with stable backport ? I don't mind either way. I expect to get HMM nouveau upstream over next couple release cycle. Cheers, Jérôme