linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v1] mm/gup: adjust stale comment for RCU GUP-fast

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 1 Sep 2022 12:40:38 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K . V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] mm/gup: adjust stale comment for RCU GUP-fast

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 06:34:41PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 01.09.22 18:28, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:21:19AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> commit 4b471e8898c3 ("mm, thp: remove infrastructure for handling splitting
> >> PMDs") didn't remove all details about the THP split requirements for
> >> RCU GUP-fast.
> >>
> >> IPI broeadcasts on THP split are no longer required.
> >>
> >> Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
> >> Cc: Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>
> >> Cc: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> >> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>
> >> Cc: Jerome Marchand <jmarchan@...hat.com>
> >> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>
> >> Cc: Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
> >> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
> >> Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
> >> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
> >> Cc: Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>
> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
> >> ---
> >>  mm/gup.c | 5 ++---
> >>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> >> index 5abdaf487460..cfe71f422787 100644
> >> --- a/mm/gup.c
> >> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> >> @@ -2309,9 +2309,8 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(get_user_pages_unlocked);
> >>   *
> >>   * Another way to achieve this is to batch up page table containing pages
> >>   * belonging to more than one mm_user, then rcu_sched a callback to free those
> >> - * pages. Disabling interrupts will allow the fast_gup walker to both block
> >> - * the rcu_sched callback, and an IPI that we broadcast for splitting THPs
> >> - * (which is a relatively rare event). The code below adopts this strategy.
> >> + * pages. Disabling interrupts will allow the fast_gup walker to block the
> >> + * rcu_sched callback.
> > 
> > This is the comment for fast-gup in general but not only for thp split.
> 
> "an IPI that we broadcast for splitting THP" is about splitting THP.

Ah OK.  Shall we still keep some "IPI broadcast" information here if we're
modifying it?  Otherwise it gives a feeling that none needs the IPIs.

It can be dropped later if you want to rework the thp collapse side and
finally remove IPI dependency on fast-gup, but so far it seems to me it's
still needed.  Or just drop this patch until that rework happens?

> 
> > 
> > I can understand that we don't need IPI for thp split, but isn't the IPIs
> > still needed for thp collapse (aka pmdp_collapse_flush)?
> 
> That was, unfortunately, never documented -- and as discussed in the
> other thread, arm64 doesn't do that IPI before collapse and might need
> fixing. We'll most probably end up getting rid of that
> (undocumented/forgotten) IPI requirement and fix it in GUP-fast by
> re-rechecking if the PMD changed.

Yeah from an initial thought that looks valid to me.  It'll also allow
pmdp_collapse_flush() to be dropped too, am I right?

-- 
Peter Xu