| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 03 Jan 2012 15:08:33 -0500
From: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...il.com>
CC: Naoya Horiguchi <n-horiguchi@...jp.nec.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] thp: optimize away unnecessary page table locking
On Thu, Dec 29, 2011 at 10:59:53PM -0500, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
...
> > @@ -689,26 +681,19 @@ static int pagemap_pte_range(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> > /* find the first VMA at or above 'addr' */
> > vma = find_vma(walk->mm, addr);
> >
> > - spin_lock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
> > - if (pmd_trans_huge(*pmd)) {
> > - if (pmd_trans_splitting(*pmd)) {
> > - spin_unlock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
> > - wait_split_huge_page(vma->anon_vma, pmd);
> > - } else {
> > - for (; addr != end; addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > - int offset = (addr& ~PAGEMAP_WALK_MASK)
> > - >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> > - pfn = thp_pte_to_pagemap_entry(*(pte_t *)pmd,
> > - offset);
> > - err = add_to_pagemap(addr, pfn, pm);
> > - if (err)
> > - break;
> > - }
> > - spin_unlock(&walk->mm->page_table_lock);
> > - return err;
> > + /* David comment */
>
> This commnet doesn't explain anything.
Sorry, I forgot to remove.
...
> > diff --git 3.2-rc5.orig/mm/huge_memory.c 3.2-rc5/mm/huge_memory.c
> > index 36b3d98..b73c744 100644
> > --- 3.2-rc5.orig/mm/huge_memory.c
> > +++ 3.2-rc5/mm/huge_memory.c
...
> > @@ -1104,27 +1080,45 @@ int change_huge_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> > struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > int ret = 0;
> >
> > - spin_lock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> > - if (likely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd))) {
> > - if (unlikely(pmd_trans_splitting(*pmd))) {
> > - spin_unlock(&mm->page_table_lock);
> > - wait_split_huge_page(vma->anon_vma, pmd);
> > - } else {
> > - pmd_t entry;
> > + if (likely(check_and_wait_split_huge_pmd(pmd, vma))) {
> > + pmd_t entry;
> >
> > - entry = pmdp_get_and_clear(mm, addr, pmd);
> > - entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
> > - set_pmd_at(mm, addr, pmd, entry);
> > - spin_unlock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
> > - flush_tlb_range(vma, addr, addr + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
> > - ret = 1;
> > - }
> > - } else
> > + entry = pmdp_get_and_clear(mm, addr, pmd);
> > + entry = pmd_modify(entry, newprot);
> > + set_pmd_at(mm, addr, pmd, entry);
> > spin_unlock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
> > + flush_tlb_range(vma, addr, addr + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
> > + ret = 1;
> > + }
> >
> > return ret;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * Returns 1 if a given pmd is mapping a thp and stable (not under splitting.)
> > + * Returns 0 otherwise. Note that if it returns 1, this routine returns without
> > + * unlocking page table locks. So callers must unlock them.
> > + */
> > +int check_and_wait_split_huge_pmd(pmd_t *pmd, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>
> We always should avoid a name of "check". It doesn't explain what the
> function does.
How about pmd_trans_huge_stable()?
>
> > +{
>
> VM_BUG_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(vma->mm)) here?
OK, I will add VM_BUG_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(vma->mm->mmap_sem)),
which helps us make sure that new user of this function holds mmap_sem.
> > + if (!pmd_trans_huge(*pmd))
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > + spin_lock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
> > + if (likely(pmd_trans_huge(*pmd))) {
> > + if (pmd_trans_splitting(*pmd)) {
> > + spin_unlock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
> > + wait_split_huge_page(vma->anon_vma, pmd);
> > + } else {
> > + /* Thp mapped by 'pmd' is stable, so we can
> > + * handle it as it is. */
> > + return 1;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + spin_unlock(&vma->vm_mm->page_table_lock);
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > pmd_t *page_check_address_pmd(struct page *page,
> > struct mm_struct *mm,
> > unsigned long address,
> > diff --git 3.2-rc5.orig/mm/mremap.c 3.2-rc5/mm/mremap.c
> > index d6959cb..d534668 100644
> > --- 3.2-rc5.orig/mm/mremap.c
> > +++ 3.2-rc5/mm/mremap.c
> > @@ -155,9 +155,8 @@ unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > if (err> 0) {
> > need_flush = true;
> > continue;
> > - } else if (!err) {
> > - split_huge_page_pmd(vma->vm_mm, old_pmd);
> > }
> > + split_huge_page_pmd(vma->vm_mm, old_pmd);
>
> unrelated hunk?
All users (except one) of the logic which I want to replace with
check_and_wait_split_huge_pmd() expect it to return:
1: when pmd maps thp and is not under splitting,
0: when pmd maps thp and is under splitting,
0: when pmd doesn't map thp.
But only move_huge_pmd() expects differently:
1: when pmd maps thp and is not under splitting,
-1: when pmd maps thp and is under splitting,
0: when pmd doesn't map thp.
move_huge_pmd() is used only around the above hunk, so I chose to change
the caller. It makes no behavioral change because split_huge_page_pmd()
does nothing when old_pmd doesn't map thp.
Is it better to separate changing return value into another patch?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists