[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5d80c368-7ce7-4a44-9cd7-aee3e1c9182b@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 17:30:27 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>, Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...nel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@...gle.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 2/4] mm/gup: Use ptep_get_lockless_norecency()
On 15.02.24 13:17, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> Gup needs to read ptes locklessly, so it uses ptep_get_lockless().
> However, the returned access and dirty bits are unimportant so let's
> switch over to ptep_get_lockless_norecency().
>
> The wrinkle is that gup needs to check that the pte hasn't changed once
> it has pinned the folio following this model:
>
> pte = ptep_get_lockless_norecency(ptep)
> ...
> if (!pte_same(pte, ptep_get_lockless(ptep)))
> // RACE!
> ...
>
> And now that pte may not contain correct access and dirty information,
> the pte_same() comparison could spuriously fail. So let's introduce a
> new pte_same_norecency() helper which will ignore the access and dirty
> bits when doing the comparison.
>
> Note that previously, ptep_get() was being used for the comparison; this
> is technically incorrect because the PTL is not held. I've also
> converted the comparison to use the preferred pmd_same() helper instead
> of doing a raw value comparison.
>
> As a side-effect, this new approach removes the possibility of
> concurrent read/write to the page causing a spurious fast gup failure,
> because the access and dirty bits are no longer used in the comparison.
>
> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@....com>
> ---
[...]
> #ifndef __HAVE_ARCH_PTE_UNUSED
> /*
> * Some architectures provide facilities to virtualization guests
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index df83182ec72d..0f96d0a5ec09 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -2576,7 +2576,7 @@ static int gup_pte_range(pmd_t pmd, pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr,
> if (!ptep)
> return 0;
> do {
> - pte_t pte = ptep_get_lockless(ptep);
> + pte_t pte = ptep_get_lockless_norecency(ptep);
> struct page *page;
> struct folio *folio;
>
> @@ -2617,8 +2617,9 @@ static int gup_pte_range(pmd_t pmd, pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr,
> goto pte_unmap;
> }
>
> - if (unlikely(pmd_val(pmd) != pmd_val(*pmdp)) ||
> - unlikely(pte_val(pte) != pte_val(ptep_get(ptep)))) {
> + if (unlikely(!pmd_same(pmd, *pmdp)) ||
> + unlikely(!pte_same_norecency(pte,
> + ptep_get_lockless_norecency(ptep)))) {
> gup_put_folio(folio, 1, flags);
> goto pte_unmap;
We pass the pte into pte_access_permitted(). It would be good to mention
that you checked all implementations.
Acked-by: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists