Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Message-ID: <1535730524.501.13.camel@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 12/24] x86/mm: Modify ptep_set_wrprotect and
 pmdp_set_wrprotect for _PAGE_DIRTY_SW
From:   Yu-cheng Yu <yu-cheng.yu@intel.com>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Cc:     the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux API <linux-api@vger.kernel.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>,
        Balbir Singh <bsingharora@gmail.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
        Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, hjl.tools@gmail.com,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, keescook@chromiun.org,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>,
        ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com
Date:   Fri, 31 Aug 2018 08:48:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <f5a36e32-7c5f-91fe-9e98-fb44867fda11@linux.intel.com>
References: <ce051b5b-feef-376f-e085-11f65a5f2215@linux.intel.com>
         <1535649960.26689.15.camel@intel.com>
         <33d45a12-513c-eba2-a2de-3d6b630e928e@linux.intel.com>
         <1535651666.27823.6.camel@intel.com>
         <CAG48ez3ixWROuQc6WZze6qPL6q0e_gCnMU4XF11JUWziePsBJg@mail.gmail.com>
         <1535660494.28258.36.camel@intel.com>
         <CAG48ez0yOuDhqxB779aO3Kss3gQ3cZTJL1VphDXQm+_M9jFPvQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <1535662366.28781.6.camel@intel.com>
         <CAG48ez0mkr95_TbLQnDGuGUd6G+eJVLZ-fEjDkwA6dSrm+9tLw@mail.gmail.com>
         <CAG48ez3S3+DzAyo_SnoUW1GO0Cpd_x0A83MOx2p_MkogoAatLQ@mail.gmail.com>
         <20180831095300.GF24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
         <1535726032.32537.0.camel@intel.com>
         <f5a36e32-7c5f-91fe-9e98-fb44867fda11@linux.intel.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 2018-08-31 at 07:47 -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 08/31/2018 07:33 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote:
> > 
> > Please use the form:
> > 
> > 	pte_t new_pte, pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep);
> > 	do {
> > 		new_pte = /* ... */;
> > 	} while (!try_cmpxchg(ptep, &pte, new_pte);
> It's probably also worth doing some testing to see if you can detect
> the
> cost of the cmpxchg.  It's definitely more than the old code.
> 
> A loop that does mprotect(PROT_READ) followed by
> mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE) should do it.

I created the test,

https://github.com/yyu168/cet-smoke-test/blob/quick/quick/mprotect_ben
ch.c

then realized this won't work.

To trigger a race in ptep_set_wrprotect(), we need to fork from one of
three pthread siblings.

Or do we measure only how much this affects fork?
If there is no racing, the effect should be minimal.

Yu-cheng