Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 216.228.112.32 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=216.228.112.32; helo=mail.nvidia.com;
From:   Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
CC:     <linux-mm@kvack.org>, <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@gmail.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 01/23] mm: Introduce PTE_MARKER swap entry
Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 13:12:23 +1100
Message-ID: <2190897.LADUpQAO2C@nvdebian>
In-Reply-To: <Yam9EezLTANRA+Rf@xz-m1.local>
References: <20211115075522.73795-1-peterx@redhat.com> <3832555.7SGzcYD3YQ@nvdebian> <Yam9EezLTANRA+Rf@xz-m1.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Dec 2021 02:12:30.7111
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 73c89b15-59c7-4657-6ed8-08d9b927062e
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[216.228.112.32];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT063.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: BYAPR12MB3159
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Friday, 3 December 2021 5:45:37 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 03, 2021 at 04:35:38PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > > > +static inline pte_marker pte_marker_get(swp_entry_t entry)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > +	return swp_offset(entry) & PTE_MARKER_MASK;
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure the PTE_MARKER_MASK adds much, especially as we only have one
> > > > user. I don't see a problem with open-coding these kind of checks (ie.
> > > 
> > > It's more or less a safety belt to make sure anything pte_marker_get() returned
> > > will be pte_marker defined bits only.
> > > 
> > > > swp_offset(entry) & PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP) as you kind of end up doing that anyway.
> > > > Alternatively if you want helper functions I think it would be better to define
> > > > them for each marker. Eg: is_pte_marker_uffd_wp().
> > > 
> > > Yes we can have something like is_pte_marker_uffd_wp(), I didn't do that
> > > explicitly because I want us to be clear that pte_marker is a bitmask, so
> > > calling "is_*" will be slightly opaque - strictly speaking it should be
> > > "pte_marker_has_uffd_wp_bit()" if there will be more bits defined, but then the
> > > name of the helper will look a bit odd too.  Hence I just keep the only
> > > interface to fetch the whole marker and use "&" in the call sites to check.
> > 
> > Why does a caller need to care if it's a bitmask or not though? Isn't that an
> > implementation detail that could be left to the "is_*" functions? I must admit
> > I'm still working through the rest of this series though - is it because you
> > end up storing some kind of value in the upper bits of the PTE marker?
> 
> Nop. I'm just afraid the caller could overlook the fact that it's a bitmask,
> then there can be code like:
> 
>   if (is_pte_marker_uffd_wp(*ptep) && drop_uffd_wp)
>       pte_clear(ptep)
> 
> While we should only do:
> 
>   if (is_pte_marker_uffd_wp(*ptep) && drop_uffd_wp)
>       // remove uffd-wp bit in the pte_marker, keep the reset bitmask

I'm not sure how having the helper function prevents or changes this though? In
fact I just noticed this in patch 8:

                             if (uffd_wp_resolve &&
                                    (pte_marker_get(entry) & PTE_MARKER_UFFD_WP)) {
                                        pte_clear(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte);
                                        pages++;
                                }

And if I'm understanding your point correctly isn't that wrong because if there
were other users of pte markers they would inadvertently get cleared? Unless of
course I've missed something - I haven't looked at patch 8 yet for context. To
help with the above situation I think you would need a helper for clearing
ptes.

> I could be worrying too much, there's no real user of it.  If you prefer the
> helper a lot I can add it in the new version.  Thanks,

It's not a massive issue, but I do think either defining a helper or open
coding the bit check is clearer. I think we can worry about other users if/when
they appear.

 - Alistair