Message-ID: <20230629174355.222ebed0@thinkpad-T15>
Date:   Thu, 29 Jun 2023 17:43:55 +0200
From:   Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>
Cc:     Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@...gle.com>,
        Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
        Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Steven Price <steven.price@....com>,
        SeongJae Park <sj@...nel.org>,
        Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>,
        Huang Ying <ying.huang@...el.com>,
        Naoya Horiguchi <naoya.horiguchi@....com>,
        Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
        Zack Rusin <zackr@...are.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@....com>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@...wei.com>,
        Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
        Song Liu <song@...nel.org>,
        Thomas Hellstrom <thomas.hellstrom@...ux.intel.com>,
        Russell King <linux@...linux.org.uk>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
        "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
        Vishal Moola <vishal.moola@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, sparclinux@...r.kernel.org,
        linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/12] s390: add pte_free_defer() for pgtables
 sharing page

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 15:59:07 +0200
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 09:16:24PM +0200, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> > On Tue, 20 Jun 2023 00:51:19 -0700 (PDT)
> > Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com> wrote:  
> 
> Hi Gerald, Hugh!
> 
> ...
> > @@ -407,6 +445,88 @@ void __tlb_remove_table(void *_table)
> >  	__free_page(page);
> >  }
> >  
> > +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > +static void pte_free_now0(struct rcu_head *head);
> > +static void pte_free_now1(struct rcu_head *head);  
> 
> What about pte_free_lower() / pte_free_upper()?

I actually like the 0/1 better, I always get confused what exactly we
mean with "lower / upper" in our code and comments. Is it the first
or second half? With 0/1 it is immediately clear to me.

> 
> ...
> > +void pte_free_defer(struct mm_struct *mm, pgtable_t pgtable)
> > +{
> > +	unsigned int bit, mask;
> > +	struct page *page;
> > +
> > +	page = virt_to_page(pgtable);
> > +	if (mm_alloc_pgste(mm)) {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * TODO: Do we need gmap_unlink(mm, pgtable, addr), like in
> > +		 * page_table_free_rcu()?
> > +		 * If yes -> need addr parameter here, like in pte_free_tlb().
> > +		 */
> > +		call_rcu(&page->rcu_head, pte_free_pgste);
> > +		return;
> > +}
> > +	bit = ((unsigned long)pgtable & ~PAGE_MASK) / (PTRS_PER_PTE * sizeof(pte_t));
> > +
> > +	spin_lock_bh(&mm->context.lock);
> > +	mask = atomic_xor_bits(&page->_refcount, 0x15U << (bit + 24));  
> 
> This  makes the bit logic increasingly complicated to me.

I think it is well in line with existing code in page_table_free[_rcu].
Only instead of doing xor with 0x11U, it does xor with 0x15U to also
switch on the H bit while at it.

> 
> What if instead we set the rule "one bit at a time only"?
> That means an atomic group bit flip is only allowed between
> pairs of bits, namely:
> 
> bit flip	initiated from
> -----------	----------------------------------------
> P      <- A	page_table_free(), page_table_free_rcu()
>      H <- A	pte_free_defer()
> P <- H		pte_free_half()
> 
> In the current model P bit could be on together with H
> bit simultaneously. That actually brings in equation
> nothing.

P bit has to be set at the latest when __tlb_remove_table() gets
called, because there it is checked / cleared. It might be possible
to not set it in pte_free_defer() already, but only later in
pte_free_half() RCU callback, before calling __tlb_remove_table().
But that would not be in line any more with existing code, where it
is already set before scheduling the RCU callback.

Therefore, I would rather stick to the current approach, unless
you see some bug in it.

> 
> Besides, this check in page_table_alloc() (while still
> correct) makes one (well, me) wonder "what about HH bits?":
> 
> 	mask = (mask | (mask >> 4)) & 0x03U;
> 	if (mask != 0x03U) {
> 		...
> 	}

Without adding fragments back to the list, it is not necessary
to check any H bits page_table_alloc(), or so I hope. Actually,
I like that aspect most, i.e. we have as little impact on current
code as possible.

And H bits are only relevant for preventing double use of rcu_head,
which is what they were designed for, and only the new code has
to care about them.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists