[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABb0KFHJVeEkh4f6WWK6FThCbA+NE8iYUZE68nV1YAxaHwiwog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2023 18:10:49 +0200
From: Michał Mirosław <emmir@...gle.com>
To: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
Cc: Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
Danylo Mocherniuk <mdanylo@...gle.com>,
Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
Paul Gofman <pgofman@...eweavers.com>,
Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
Yun Zhou <yun.zhou@...driver.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [v2] fs/proc/task_mmu: Implement IOCTL for efficient page table scanning
On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 at 17:22, Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@...labora.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/24/23 7:38 PM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > On Mon, 24 Jul 2023 at 16:04, Muhammad Usama Anjum
> > <usama.anjum@...labora.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Fixed found bugs. Testing it further.
> >>
> >> - Split and backoff in case buffer full case as well
> >> - Fix the wrong breaking of loop if page isn't interesting, skip intead
> >> - Untag the address and save them into struct
> >> - Round off the end address to next page
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
> >> ---
> >> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
> >> 1 file changed, 31 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> >> index add21fdf3c9a..64b326d0ec6d 100644
> >> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> >> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> >> @@ -2044,7 +2050,7 @@ static int pagemap_scan_thp_entry(pmd_t *pmd,
> >> unsigned long start,
> >> * Break huge page into small pages if the WP operation
> >> * need to be performed is on a portion of the huge page.
> >> */
> >> - if (end != start + HPAGE_SIZE) {
> >> + if (end != start + HPAGE_SIZE || ret == -ENOSPC) {
> >
> > Why is it needed? If `end == start + HPAGE_SIZE` then we're handling a
> > full hugepage anyway.
> If we weren't able to add the complete thp in the output buffer and we need
> to perform WP on the entire page, we should split and rollback. Otherwise
> we'll WP the entire thp and we'll lose the state on the remaining THP which
> wasn't added to output.
>
> Lets say max=100
> only 100 pages would be added to output
> we need to split and rollback otherwise other 412 pages would get WP
In this case *end will be truncated by output() to match the number of
pages that fit.
> >> @@ -2066,8 +2072,8 @@ static int pagemap_scan_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmd,
> >> unsigned long start,
> >> {
> >> struct pagemap_scan_private *p = walk->private;
> >> struct vm_area_struct *vma = walk->vma;
> >> + unsigned long addr, categories, next;
> >> pte_t *pte, *start_pte;
> >> - unsigned long addr;
> >> bool flush = false;
> >> spinlock_t *ptl;
> >> int ret;
> >> @@ -2088,12 +2094,14 @@ static int pagemap_scan_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmd,
> >> unsigned long start,
> >> }
> >>
> >> for (addr = start; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> >> - unsigned long categories = p->cur_vma_category |
> >> - pagemap_page_category(vma, addr, ptep_get(pte));
> >> - unsigned long next = addr + PAGE_SIZE;
> >> + categories = p->cur_vma_category |
> >> + pagemap_page_category(vma, addr, ptep_get(pte));
> >> + next = addr + PAGE_SIZE;
> >
> > Why moving the variable declarations out of the loop?
> Saving spaces inside loop. What are pros of declation of variable in loop?
Informing the reader that the variables have scope limited to the loop body.
[...]
> >> @@ -2219,22 +2225,24 @@ static int pagemap_scan_get_args(struct pm_scan_arg
> >> *arg,
> >> arg->category_anyof_mask | arg->return_mask) & ~PM_SCAN_CATEGORIES)
> >> return -EINVAL;
> >>
> >> - start = untagged_addr((unsigned long)arg->start);
> >> - end = untagged_addr((unsigned long)arg->end);
> >> - vec = untagged_addr((unsigned long)arg->vec);
> >> + arg->start = untagged_addr((unsigned long)arg->start);
> >> + arg->end = untagged_addr((unsigned long)arg->end);
> >> + arg->vec = untagged_addr((unsigned long)arg->vec);
> >
> > BTW, We should we keep the tag in args writeback().
> Sorry what?
> After this function, the start, end and vec would be used. We need to make
> sure that the address are untagged before that.
We do write back the address the walk ended at to arg->start in
userspace. This pointer I think needs the tag reconstructed so that
retrying the ioctl() will be possible.
Best Regards
Michał Mirosław
Powered by blists - more mailing lists