linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] mm, thp: introduce FOLL_SPLIT

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
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 13 Jun 2019 16:47:25 +0000
From:   Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>
To:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
CC:     "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        "namit@...are.com" <namit@...are.com>,
        "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>,
        "rostedt@...dmis.org" <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        "mhiramat@...nel.org" <mhiramat@...nel.org>,
        "matthew.wilcox@...cle.com" <matthew.wilcox@...cle.com>,
        Kernel Team <Kernel-team@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/5] mm, thp: introduce FOLL_SPLIT_PMD

Hi Kirill,

> On Jun 13, 2019, at 8:24 AM, Song Liu <songliubraving@...com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Jun 13, 2019, at 8:14 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 03:03:01PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Jun 13, 2019, at 7:16 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@...temov.name> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2019 at 01:57:30PM +0000, Song Liu wrote:
>>>>>> And I'm not convinced that it belongs here at all. User requested PMD
>>>>>> split and it is done after split_huge_pmd(). The rest can be handled by
>>>>>> the caller as needed.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I put this part here because split_huge_pmd() for file-backed THP is
>>>>> not really done after split_huge_pmd(). And I would like it done before
>>>>> calling follow_page_pte() below. Maybe we can still do them here, just 
>>>>> for file-backed THPs?
>>>>> 
>>>>> If we would move it, shall we move to callers of follow_page_mask()? 
>>>>> In that case, we will probably end up with similar code in two places:
>>>>> __get_user_pages() and follow_page(). 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Did I get this right?
>>>> 
>>>> Would it be enough to replace pte_offset_map_lock() in follow_page_pte()
>>>> with pte_alloc_map_lock()?
>>> 
>>> This is similar to my previous version:
>>> 
>>> +		} else {  /* flags & FOLL_SPLIT_PMD */
>>> +			pte_t *pte;
>>> +			spin_unlock(ptl);
>>> +			split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
>>> +			pte = get_locked_pte(mm, address, &ptl);
>>> +			if (!pte)
>>> +				return no_page_table(vma, flags);
>>> +			spin_unlock(ptl);
>>> +			ret = 0;
>>> +		}
>>> 
>>> I think this is cleaner than use pte_alloc_map_lock() in follow_page_pte(). 
>>> What's your thought on these two versions (^^^ vs. pte_alloc_map_lock)?
>> 
>> It's additional lock-unlock cycle and few more lines of code...
>> 
>>>> This will leave bunch not populated PTE entries, but it is fine: they will
>>>> be populated on the next access to them.
>>> 
>>> We need to handle page fault during next access, right? Since we already
>>> allocated everything, we can just populate the PTE entries and saves a
>>> lot of page faults (assuming we will access them later). 
>> 
>> Not a lot due to faultaround and they may never happen, but you need to
>> tear down the mapping any way.
> 
> I see. Let me try this way. 
> 
> Thanks,
> Song

To make sure I understand your suggestions. Here is what I got:

diff --git c/mm/gup.c w/mm/gup.c
index ddde097cf9e4..85e6f46fd925 100644
--- c/mm/gup.c
+++ w/mm/gup.c
@@ -197,7 +197,10 @@ static struct page *follow_page_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
        if (unlikely(pmd_bad(*pmd)))
                return no_page_table(vma, flags);

-       ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, address, &ptl);
+       ptep = pte_alloc_map_lock(mm, pmd, address, &ptl);
+       if (!ptep)
+               return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
+
        pte = *ptep;
        if (!pte_present(pte)) {
                swp_entry_t entry;
@@ -398,7 +401,7 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
                spin_unlock(ptl);
                return follow_page_pte(vma, address, pmd, flags, &ctx->pgmap);
        }
-       if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
+       if (flags & (FOLL_SPLIT | FOLL_SPLIT_PMD)) {
                int ret;
                page = pmd_page(*pmd);
                if (is_huge_zero_page(page)) {
@@ -407,7 +410,7 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
                        split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
                        if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
                                ret = -EBUSY;
-               } else {
+               } else if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
                        if (unlikely(!try_get_page(page))) {
                                spin_unlock(ptl);
                                return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
@@ -419,6 +422,10 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
                        put_page(page);
                        if (pmd_none(*pmd))
                                return no_page_table(vma, flags);
+               } else {  /* flags & FOLL_SPLIT_PMD */
+                       spin_unlock(ptl);
+                       split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
+                       ret = 0;
                }

                return ret ? ERR_PTR(ret) :
                        follow_page_pte(vma, address, pmd, flags, &ctx->pgmap);


This version doesn't work as-is, because it returns at the first check:

        if (unlikely(pmd_bad(*pmd)))
                return no_page_table(vma, flags);

Did I misunderstand anything here?

Thanks,
Song


> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Kirill A. Shutemov