Re: [PATCH v5 19/25] arm64/mm: Wire up PTE_CONT for user mappings

David Hildenbrand
2024-02-12T16:24:21Z

On 12.02.24 16:34, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 15:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 12.02.24 15:45, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 12/02/2024 13:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>>> If so, I wonder if we could instead do that comparison modulo the access/dirty
>>>>>> bits,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that would work - but will need to think a bit more on it.
>>>>>
>>>>>> and leave ptep_get_lockless() only reading a single entry?
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we will need to do something a bit less fragile. ptep_get() does
>>>>> collect
>>>>> the access/dirty bits so its confusing if ptep_get_lockless() doesn't IMHO. So
>>>>> we will likely want to rename the function and make its documentation explicit
>>>>> that it does not return those bits.
>>>>>
>>>>> ptep_get_lockless_noyoungdirty()? yuk... Any ideas?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course if I could convince you the current implementation is safe, I
>>>>> might be
>>>>> able to sidestep this optimization until a later date?
>>>>
>>>> As discussed (and pointed out abive), there might be quite some callsites where
>>>> we don't really care about uptodate accessed/dirty bits -- where ptep_get() is
>>>> used nowadays.
>>>>
>>>> One way to approach that I had in mind was having an explicit interface:
>>>>
>>>> ptep_get()
>>>> ptep_get_uptodate()
>>>> ptep_get_lockless()
>>>> ptep_get_lockless_uptodate()
>>>
>>> Yes, I like the direction of this. I guess we anticipate that call sites
>>> requiring the "_uptodate" variant will be the minority so it makes sense to use
>>> the current names for the "_not_uptodate" variants? But to do a slow migration,
>>> it might be better/safer to have the weaker variant use the new name - that
>>> would allow us to downgrade one at a time?
>>
>> Yes, I was primarily struggling with names. Likely it makes sense to either have
>> two completely new function names, or use the new name only for the "faster but
>> less precise" variant.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Especially the last one might not be needed.
>>> I've done a scan through the code and agree with Mark's original conclusions.
>>> Additionally, huge_pte_alloc() (which isn't used for arm64) doesn't rely on
>>> access/dirty info. So I think I could migrate everything to the weaker variant
>>> fairly easily.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Futher, "uptodate" might not be the best choice because of PageUptodate() and
>>>> friends. But it's better than "youngdirty"/"noyoungdirty" IMHO.
>>>
>>> Certainly agree with "noyoungdirty" being a horrible name. How about "_sync" /
>>> "_nosync"?
>>
>> I could live with
>>
>> ptep_get_sync()
>> ptep_get_nosync()
>>
>> with proper documentation :)
>
> but could you live with:
>
> ptep_get()
> ptep_get_nosync()
> ptep_get_lockless_nosync()
>
> ?
>
> So leave the "slower, more precise" version with the existing name.

Sure.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb