[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20170614160636.43647f26@mschwideX1>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:06:36 +0200
From: Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>
To: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Vineet Gupta <vgupta@...opsys.com>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [HELP-NEEDED, PATCH 0/3] Do not loose dirty bit on THP pages
Hi Kirill,
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 16:51:40 +0300
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> Vlastimil noted that pmdp_invalidate() is not atomic and we can loose
> dirty and access bits if CPU sets them after pmdp dereference, but
> before set_pmd_at().
>
> The bug doesn't lead to user-visible misbehaviour in current kernel, but
> fixing this would be critical for future work on THP: both huge-ext4 and THP
> swap out rely on proper dirty tracking.
>
> Unfortunately, there's no way to address the issue in a generic way. We need to
> fix all architectures that support THP one-by-one.
>
> All architectures that have THP supported have to provide atomic
> pmdp_invalidate(). If generic implementation of pmdp_invalidate() is used,
> architecture needs to provide atomic pmdp_mknonpresent().
>
> I've fixed the issue for x86, but I need help with the rest.
>
> So far THP is supported on 8 architectures. Power and S390 already provides
> atomic pmdp_invalidate(). x86 is fixed by this patches, so 5 architectures
> left:
For s390 the pmdp_invalidate() is atomic only in regard to the dirty and
referenced bits because we use a fault driven approach for this, no?
More specifically the update via the pmdp_xchg_direct() function is protected
by the page table lock, the update on the pmd entry itself does *not* have
to be atomic (for s390).
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists