[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190311231017.GA207964@google.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2019 17:10:17 -0600
From: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
To: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
Chintan Pandya <cpandya@...eaurora.org>,
Jun Yao <yaojun8558363@...il.com>,
Laura Abbott <labbott@...hat.com>,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] arm64: mm: enable per pmd page table lock
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 01:58:27PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 03/10/2019 06:49 AM, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > Switch from per mm_struct to per pmd page table lock by enabling
> > ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK. This provides better granularity for
> > large system.
> >
> > I'm not sure if there is contention on mm->page_table_lock. Given
> > the option comes at no cost (apart from initializing more spin
> > locks), why not enable it now.
> >
> > We only do so when pmd is not folded, so we don't mistakenly call
> > pgtable_pmd_page_ctor() on pud or p4d in pgd_pgtable_alloc(). (We
> > check shift against PMD_SHIFT, which is same as PUD_SHIFT when pmd
> > is folded).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
> > ---
> > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 3 +++
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h | 12 +++++++++++-
> > arch/arm64/include/asm/tlb.h | 5 ++++-
> > 3 files changed, 18 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/Kconfig b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > index cfbf307d6dc4..a3b1b789f766 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/Kconfig
> > @@ -872,6 +872,9 @@ config ARCH_WANT_HUGE_PMD_SHARE
> > config ARCH_HAS_CACHE_LINE_SIZE
> > def_bool y
> >
> > +config ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK
> > + def_bool y if PGTABLE_LEVELS > 2
> > +
> > config SECCOMP
> > bool "Enable seccomp to safely compute untrusted bytecode"
> > ---help---
> > diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h
> > index 52fa47c73bf0..dabba4b2c61f 100644
> > --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h
> > +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgalloc.h
> > @@ -33,12 +33,22 @@
> >
> > static inline pmd_t *pmd_alloc_one(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr)
> > {
> > - return (pmd_t *)__get_free_page(PGALLOC_GFP);
> > + struct page *page;
> > +
> > + page = alloc_page(PGALLOC_GFP);
> > + if (!page)
> > + return NULL;
> > + if (!pgtable_pmd_page_ctor(page)) {
> > + __free_page(page);
> > + return NULL;
> > + }
> > + return page_address(page);
> > }
> >
> > static inline void pmd_free(struct mm_struct *mm, pmd_t *pmdp)
> > {
> > BUG_ON((unsigned long)pmdp & (PAGE_SIZE-1));
> > + pgtable_pmd_page_dtor(virt_to_page(pmdp));
> > free_page((unsigned long)pmdp);
> > }
>
> There is just one problem here. ARM KVM's stage2_pmd_free() calls into pmd_free() on a page
> originally allocated with __get_free_page() and never went through pgtable_pmd_page_ctor().
> So when ARCH_ENABLE_SPLIT_PMD_PTLOCK is enabled
>
> stage2_pmd_free()
> pgtable_pmd_page_dtor()
> ptlock_free()
> kmem_cache_free(page_ptl_cachep, page->ptl)
>
> Though SLUB implementation for kmem_cache_free() seems to be handling NULL page->ptl (as the
> page never got it's lock allocated or initialized) correctly I am not sure if it is a right
> thing to do.
Thanks for reminding me. This should be fixed as well. Will do it
in a separate patch.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists