[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8F98262B-206B-434C-88B9-9F3A6919782D@vmware.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2022 18:15:34 +0000
From: Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>
To: Chih-En Lin <shiyn.lin@...il.com>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
William Kucharski <william.kucharski@...cle.com>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
Tong Tiangen <tongtiangen@...wei.com>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Li kunyu <kunyu@...china.com>,
Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>,
Dinglan Peng <peng301@...due.edu>,
Pedro Fonseca <pfonseca@...due.edu>,
Jim Huang <jserv@...s.ncku.edu.tw>,
Huichun Feng <foxhoundsk.tw@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 7/9] mm: Add the break COW PTE handler
On Sep 27, 2022, at 9:29 AM, Chih-En Lin <shiyn.lin@...il.com> wrote:
> To handle the COW PTE with write fault, introduce the helper function
> handle_cow_pte(). The function provides two behaviors. One is breaking
> COW by decreasing the refcount, pgables_bytes, and RSS. Another is
> copying all the information in the shared PTE table by using
> copy_pte_page() with a wrapper.
>
> Also, add the wrapper functions to help us find out the COWed or
> COW-available PTE table.
>
[ snip ]
> +static inline int copy_cow_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> + pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> + unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
> +{
> + struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> + struct mmu_notifier_range range;
> + int ret;
> + bool is_cow;
> +
> + is_cow = is_cow_mapping(vma->vm_flags);
> + if (is_cow) {
> + mmu_notifier_range_init(&range, MMU_NOTIFY_PROTECTION_PAGE,
> + 0, vma, mm, start, end);
> + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
> + mmap_assert_write_locked(mm);
> + raw_write_seqcount_begin(&mm->write_protect_seq);
> + }
> +
> + ret = copy_pte_range(vma, vma, dst_pmd, src_pmd, start, end);
> +
> + if (is_cow) {
> + raw_write_seqcount_end(&mm->write_protect_seq);
> + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
Usually, I would expect mmu-notifiers and TLB flushes to be initiated at the
same point in the code. Presumably you changed protection, so you do need a
TLB flush, right? Is it done elsewhere?
> + }
> +
> + return ret;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> + * Break COW PTE, two state here:
> + * - After fork : [parent, rss=1, ref=2, write=NO , owner=parent]
> + * to [parent, rss=1, ref=1, write=YES, owner=NULL ]
> + * COW PTE become [ref=1, write=NO , owner=NULL ]
> + * [child , rss=0, ref=2, write=NO , owner=parent]
> + * to [child , rss=1, ref=1, write=YES, owner=NULL ]
> + * COW PTE become [ref=1, write=NO , owner=parent]
> + * NOTE
> + * - Copy the COW PTE to new PTE.
> + * - Clear the owner of COW PTE and set PMD entry writable when it is owner.
> + * - Increase RSS if it is not owner.
> + */
> +static int break_cow_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> + unsigned long addr)
> +{
> + struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> + unsigned long pte_start, pte_end;
> + unsigned long start, end;
> + struct vm_area_struct *prev = vma->vm_prev;
> + struct vm_area_struct *next = vma->vm_next;
> + pmd_t cowed_entry = *pmd;
> +
> + if (cow_pte_count(&cowed_entry) == 1) {
> + cow_pte_fallback(vma, pmd, addr);
> + return 1;
> + }
> +
> + pte_start = start = addr & PMD_MASK;
> + pte_end = end = (addr + PMD_SIZE) & PMD_MASK;
> +
> + pmd_clear(pmd);
> + /*
> + * If the vma does not cover the entire address range of the PTE table,
> + * it should check the previous and next.
> + */
> + if (start < vma->vm_start && prev) {
> + /* The part of address range is covered by previous. */
> + if (start < prev->vm_end)
> + copy_cow_pte_range(prev, pmd, &cowed_entry,
> + start, prev->vm_end);
> + start = vma->vm_start;
> + }
> + if (end > vma->vm_end && next) {
> + /* The part of address range is covered by next. */
> + if (end > next->vm_start)
> + copy_cow_pte_range(next, pmd, &cowed_entry,
> + next->vm_start, end);
> + end = vma->vm_end;
> + }
> + if (copy_cow_pte_range(vma, pmd, &cowed_entry, start, end))
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + /*
> + * Here, it is the owner, so clear the ownership. To keep RSS state and
> + * page table bytes correct, it needs to decrease them.
> + * Also, handle the address range issue here.
> + */
> + if (cow_pte_owner_is_same(&cowed_entry, pmd)) {
> + set_cow_pte_owner(&cowed_entry, NULL);
Presumably there is some assumption on atomicity here. Otherwise, two
threads can run the following code, which is wrong, no? Yet, I do not see
anything that provides such atomicity.
> + if (pte_start < vma->vm_start && prev &&
> + pte_start < prev->vm_end)
> + cow_pte_rss(mm, vma->vm_prev, pmd,
> + pte_start, prev->vm_end, false /* dec */);
> + if (pte_end > vma->vm_end && next &&
> + pte_end > next->vm_start)
> + cow_pte_rss(mm, vma->vm_next, pmd,
> + next->vm_start, pte_end, false /* dec */);
> + cow_pte_rss(mm, vma, pmd, start, end, false /* dec */);
> + mm_dec_nr_ptes(mm);
> + }
> +
> + /* Already handled it, don't reuse cowed table. */
> + pmd_put_pte(vma, &cowed_entry, addr, false);
> +
> + VM_BUG_ON(cow_pte_count(pmd) != 1);
Don’t use VM_BUG_ON().
Powered by blists - more mailing lists