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

David Hildenbrand
2024-02-12T15:26:20Z

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 :)

I don't think we use "_sync" / "_nosync" in the context of pte
operations yet.

Well, there seems to be "__arm_v7s_pte_sync" in iommu code, bit at least
in core code nothing jumped at me.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb