From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from out-188.mta0.migadu.com (out-188.mta0.migadu.com [91.218.175.188]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2F4092FBE03 for ; Mon, 29 Sep 2025 10:29:47 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.188 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759141791; cv=none; b=ltzR6x9vYs9MKx8nGVzfiesmgclwbyouqsnNMD3MxW5ViHIqmh43q634O2THx7qllY8G8Rqwk7J37dCEWTYWwfrgibTmEAV/3x4Dy3odM/znOE8DjE8EfMqcs+iUhtIrrmhXlXmHMN0veGP/zbWQvb2oJKBjyfNoPcQ6F1sCKVQ= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1759141791; c=relaxed/simple; bh=Dcq5V4tf3jjWEesf+dKHX6423tm/a2VNtwdthDH1etU=; h=Message-ID:Date:MIME-Version:From:Subject:To:Cc:References: In-Reply-To:Content-Type; b=s74vdgIiUWoG+8YiDndRKK7dhDCsmTuMGJPz/xUpyH2ezJ1GrK2WXKiG4zE/06ksKCLXN79bnxf6dm1+26mzN70/745mZB8jmq2wIF57z5fln3lDZBIexcrHD46a1WkFSJtwAKUmhHl2uSgq8SKilvdMGvpcxabue3RVlwMECfI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b=wy1pfPgs; arc=none smtp.client-ip=91.218.175.188 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux.dev Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=linux.dev header.i=@linux.dev header.b="wy1pfPgs" Message-ID: <900d0314-8e9a-4779-a058-9bb3cc8840b8@linux.dev> DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=linux.dev; s=key1; t=1759141785; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=RUhtBwI4+jsvsk1lD+y61YKvfckMQnAYP5yAxgvSD1Y=; b=wy1pfPgsXvK57QzoBeqr38f+zuFNCl6FGSxmZUjM9R6wCDpTZ9t0hX+gNSnKfZRrtSEzA2 vMeMSkorolNri5VHunRvbqe4Jdmtwk0/YyW7YagrfXI2cfA6FZd0GNUORN+sUTg80Ry2xf dJmG4C3A07A0TWBt0xR4IUcaf1bOrc8= Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2025 18:29:33 +0800 Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Report-Abuse: Please report any abuse attempt to abuse@migadu.com and include these headers. From: Lance Yang Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] mm/rmap: fix soft-dirty bit loss when remapping zero-filled mTHP subpage to shared zeropage To: David Hildenbrand Cc: ziy@nvidia.com, baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com, baohua@kernel.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com, dev.jain@arm.com, npache@redhat.com, riel@surriel.com, Liam.Howlett@oracle.com, vbabka@suse.cz, harry.yoo@oracle.com, jannh@google.com, matthew.brost@intel.com, joshua.hahnjy@gmail.com, rakie.kim@sk.com, byungchul@sk.com, gourry@gourry.net, ying.huang@linux.alibaba.com, apopple@nvidia.com, usamaarif642@gmail.com, yuzhao@google.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, ioworker0@gmail.com, stable@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com References: <20250928044855.76359-1-lance.yang@linux.dev> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_OUT On 2025/9/29 15:25, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 28.09.25 06:48, Lance Yang wrote: >> From: Lance Yang >> >> When splitting an mTHP and replacing a zero-filled subpage with the >> shared >> zeropage, try_to_map_unused_to_zeropage() currently drops the soft-dirty >> bit. >> >> For userspace tools like CRIU, which rely on the soft-dirty mechanism for >> incremental snapshots, losing this bit means modified pages are missed, >> leading to inconsistent memory state after restore. >> >> Preserve the soft-dirty bit from the old PTE when creating the zeropage >> mapping to ensure modified pages are correctly tracked. >> >> Cc: >> Fixes: b1f202060afe ("mm: remap unused subpages to shared zeropage >> when splitting isolated thp") >> Signed-off-by: Lance Yang >> --- >>   mm/migrate.c | 4 ++++ >>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/mm/migrate.c b/mm/migrate.c >> index ce83c2c3c287..bf364ba07a3f 100644 >> --- a/mm/migrate.c >> +++ b/mm/migrate.c >> @@ -322,6 +322,10 @@ static bool try_to_map_unused_to_zeropage(struct >> page_vma_mapped_walk *pvmw, >>       newpte = pte_mkspecial(pfn_pte(my_zero_pfn(pvmw->address), >>                       pvmw->vma->vm_page_prot)); >> + >> +    if (pte_swp_soft_dirty(ptep_get(pvmw->pte))) >> +        newpte = pte_mksoft_dirty(newpte); >> + >>       set_pte_at(pvmw->vma->vm_mm, pvmw->address, pvmw->pte, newpte); >>       dec_mm_counter(pvmw->vma->vm_mm, mm_counter(folio)); > > It's interesting that there isn't a single occurrence of the stof-dirty > flag in khugepaged code. I guess it all works because we do the > >     _pmd = maybe_pmd_mkwrite(pmd_mkdirty(_pmd), vma); > > and the pmd_mkdirty() will imply marking it soft-dirty. > > Now to the problem at hand: I don't think this is particularly > problematic in the common case: if the page is zero, it likely was never > written to (that's what the unerused shrinker is targeted at), so the > soft-dirty setting on the PMD is actually just an over-indication for > this page. Cool. Thanks for the insight! Good to know that ;) > > For example, when we just install the shared zeropage directly in > do_anonymous_page(), we obviously also don't set it dirty/soft-dirty. > > Now, one could argue that if the content was changed from non-zero to > zero, it ould actually be soft-dirty. Exactly. A false negative could be a problem for the userspace tools, IMO. > > Long-story short: I don't think this matters much in practice, but it's > an easy fix. > > As said by dev, please avoid double ptep_get() if possible. Sure, will do. I'll refactor it in the next version. > > Acked-by: David Hildenbrand Thanks! > > > @Lance, can you double-check that the uffd-wp bit is handled correctly? > I strongly assume we lose that as well here. Certainly, I'll check the uffd-wp bit as well and get back to you soon. Cheers, Lance