On 07.03.24 00:23, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Is a PTE present and writable, bit 58 will be set.
> This allows detecting CoW memory mappings and other mappings
> where a write access will cause a page fault.
>
But why is that required? What is the target use case? (I did not get
the cover letter in my inbox)
We're running slowly but steadily out of bits, so we better make wise
decisions.
Also, consider: Architectures where the dirty/access bit is not HW
managed could indicate "writable" here although we *will* get a page
fault to set the page dirty/accessed.
So best this can universally do is say "this PTE currently has write
permissions".
> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> index 3f78ebbb795f..7c7e0e954c02 100644
> --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> @@ -1341,6 +1341,7 @@ struct pagemapread {
> #define PM_SOFT_DIRTY BIT_ULL(55)
> #define PM_MMAP_EXCLUSIVE BIT_ULL(56)
> #define PM_UFFD_WP BIT_ULL(57)
> +#define PM_WRITE BIT_ULL(58)
> #define PM_FILE BIT_ULL(61)
> #define PM_SWAP BIT_ULL(62)
> #define PM_PRESENT BIT_ULL(63)
> @@ -1417,6 +1418,8 @@ static pagemap_entry_t pte_to_pagemap_entry(struct pagemapread *pm,
> flags |= PM_SOFT_DIRTY;
> if (pte_uffd_wp(pte))
> flags |= PM_UFFD_WP;
> + if (pte_write(pte))
> + flags |= PM_WRITE;
> } else if (is_swap_pte(pte)) {
> swp_entry_t entry;
> if (pte_swp_soft_dirty(pte))
> @@ -1483,6 +1486,8 @@ static int pagemap_pmd_range(pmd_t *pmdp, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
> flags |= PM_SOFT_DIRTY;
> if (pmd_uffd_wp(pmd))
> flags |= PM_UFFD_WP;
> + if (pmd_write(pmd))
> + flags |= PM_WRITE;
> if (pm->show_pfn)
> frame = pmd_pfn(pmd) +
> ((addr & ~PMD_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> @@ -1586,6 +1591,9 @@ static int pagemap_hugetlb_range(pte_t *ptep, unsigned long hmask,
> if (huge_pte_uffd_wp(pte))
> flags |= PM_UFFD_WP;
>
> + if (pte_write(pte))
> + flags |= PM_WRITE;
> +
> flags |= PM_PRESENT;
> if (pm->show_pfn)
> frame = pte_pfn(pte) +
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
----- Ursprüngliche Mail -----
> Von: "David Hildenbrand" <[email protected]>
> But why is that required? What is the target use case? (I did not get
> the cover letter in my inbox)
>
> We're running slowly but steadily out of bits, so we better make wise
> decisions.
>
> Also, consider: Architectures where the dirty/access bit is not HW
> managed could indicate "writable" here although we *will* get a page
> fault to set the page dirty/accessed.
I'm currently investigating why a real-time application faces unexpected
page faults. Page faults are usually fatal for real-time work loads because
the latency constraints are no longer met.
So, I wrote a small tool to inspect the memory mappings of a process to find
areas which are not correctly pre-faulted. While doing so I noticed that
there is currently no way to detect CoW mappings.
Exposing the writable property of a PTE seemed like a good start to me.
> So best this can universally do is say "this PTE currently has write
> permissions".
Ok.
Thanks,
//richard