Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2024 16:26:13 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>
Cc: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
 Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@...nel.org>, Marc Zyngier <maz@...nel.org>,
 James Morse <james.morse@....com>, Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
 Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@...wei.com>, John Hubbard
 <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Zi Yan <ziy@...dia.com>,
 Barry Song <21cnbao@...il.com>, Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
 Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>, Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@...il.com>,
 Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
 "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...nel.org>,
 "Naveen N. Rao" <naveen.n.rao@...ux.ibm.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
 "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
 x86@...nel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 19/25] arm64/mm: Wire up PTE_CONT for user mappings

On 12.02.24 15:45, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 12/02/2024 13:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> If so, I wonder if we could instead do that comparison modulo the access/dirty
>>>> bits,
>>>
>>> I think that would work - but will need to think a bit more on it.
>>>
>>>> and leave ptep_get_lockless() only reading a single entry?
>>>
>>> I think we will need to do something a bit less fragile. ptep_get() does collect
>>> the access/dirty bits so its confusing if ptep_get_lockless() doesn't IMHO. So
>>> we will likely want to rename the function and make its documentation explicit
>>> that it does not return those bits.
>>>
>>> ptep_get_lockless_noyoungdirty()? yuk... Any ideas?
>>>
>>> Of course if I could convince you the current implementation is safe, I might be
>>> able to sidestep this optimization until a later date?
>>
>> As discussed (and pointed out abive), there might be quite some callsites where
>> we don't really care about uptodate accessed/dirty bits -- where ptep_get() is
>> used nowadays.
>>
>> One way to approach that I had in mind was having an explicit interface:
>>
>> ptep_get()
>> ptep_get_uptodate()
>> ptep_get_lockless()
>> ptep_get_lockless_uptodate()
> 
> Yes, I like the direction of this. I guess we anticipate that call sites
> requiring the "_uptodate" variant will be the minority so it makes sense to use
> the current names for the "_not_uptodate" variants? But to do a slow migration,
> it might be better/safer to have the weaker variant use the new name - that
> would allow us to downgrade one at a time?

Yes, I was primarily struggling with names. Likely it makes sense to 
either have two completely new function names, or use the new name only 
for the "faster but less precise" variant.

> 
>>
>> Especially the last one might not be needed.
> I've done a scan through the code and agree with Mark's original conclusions.
> Additionally, huge_pte_alloc() (which isn't used for arm64) doesn't rely on
> access/dirty info. So I think I could migrate everything to the weaker variant
> fairly easily.
> 
>>
>> Futher, "uptodate" might not be the best choice because of PageUptodate() and
>> friends. But it's better than "youngdirty"/"noyoungdirty" IMHO.
> 
> Certainly agree with "noyoungdirty" being a horrible name. How about "_sync" /
> "_nosync"?

I could live with

ptep_get_sync()
ptep_get_nosync()

with proper documentation :)

I don't think we use "_sync" / "_nosync" in the context of pte 
operations yet.

Well, there seems to be "__arm_v7s_pte_sync" in iommu code, bit at least 
in core code nothing jumped at me.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists