[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200910195749.795232d1@thinkpad>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2020 19:57:49 +0200
From: Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Andrey Ryabinin <aryabinin@...tuozzo.com>,
linux-x86 <x86@...nel.org>,
linux-arm <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-power <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
linux-sparc <sparclinux@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-um <linux-um@...ts.infradead.org>,
linux-s390 <linux-s390@...r.kernel.org>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] mm/gup: fix gup_fast with dynamic page table
folding
On Thu, 10 Sep 2020 10:02:33 -0300
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2020 at 11:39:25AM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
>
> > As Gerald mentioned, it is very difficult to explain in a clear way.
> > Hopefully, one could make sense ot of it.
>
> I would say the page table API requires this invariant:
>
> pud = pud_offset(p4d, addr);
> do {
> WARN_ON(pud != pud_offset(p4d, addr);
> next = pud_addr_end(addr, end);
> } while (pud++, addr = next, addr != end);
>
> ie pud++ is supposed to be a shortcut for
> pud_offset(p4d, next)
>
Hmm, IIUC, all architectures with static folding will simply return
the passed-in p4d pointer for pud_offset(p4d, addr), for 3-level
pagetables. There is no difference for s390. For gup_fast, that p4d
pointer is not really a pointer to a value in a pagetable, but
to some local copy of such a value, and not just for s390.
So, pud = p4d = pointer to copy, and increasing that pud pointer
cannot be the same as pud_offset(p4d, next). I do see your point
however, at last I think :-) My problem is that I do not see where
we would have an s390-specific issue here. Maybe my understanding
of how it works for others with static folding is wrong. That
would explain my difficulties in getting your point...
> While S390 does not follow this. Fixing addr_end brings it into
> alignment by preventing pud++ from happening.
Exactly, only that nobody seems to follow it, IIUC. Fixing it up
with pXd_addr_end was my impression of what we need to do, in order to
have it work the same way as for others.
> The only currently known side effect is that gup_fast crashes, but it
> sure is an unexpected thing.
Well, from my understanding it feels more unexpected that something
that is supposed to be a pointer to an entry in a page table, really is
just a pointer to some copy somewhere.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists