[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <23a9d678-487e-5940-4cde-dc53d920fb48@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:19:58 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@...il.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...ux.ibm.com>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/14] mm/mprotect: allow exclusive anon pages to be
writable
On 18.07.22 14:02, Nadav Amit wrote:
> From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
>
> Anonymous pages might have the dirty bit clear, but this should not
> prevent mprotect from making them writable if they are exclusive.
> Therefore, skip the test whether the page is dirty in this case.
>
> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@...rix.com>
> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>
> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
> Cc: Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>
> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>
> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
> ---
> mm/mprotect.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> index 34c2dfb68c42..da5b9bf8204f 100644
> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> @@ -45,7 +45,7 @@ static inline bool can_change_pte_writable(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>
> VM_BUG_ON(!(vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE) || pte_write(pte));
>
> - if (pte_protnone(pte) || !pte_dirty(pte))
> + if (pte_protnone(pte))
> return false;
>
> /* Do we need write faults for softdirty tracking? */
> @@ -66,7 +66,8 @@ static inline bool can_change_pte_writable(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> page = vm_normal_page(vma, addr, pte);
> if (!page || !PageAnon(page) || !PageAnonExclusive(page))
> return false;
> - }
> + } else if (!pte_dirty(pte))
> + return false;
>
> return true;
> }
When I wrote that code, I was wondering how often that would actually
happen in practice -- and if we care about optimizing that. Do you have
a gut feeling in which scenarios this would happen and if we care?
If the page is in the swapcache and was swapped out, you'd be requiring
a writeback even though nobody modified the page and possibly isn't
going to do so in the near future.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists