Date:   Tue, 7 Dec 2021 10:30:15 +0800
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.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
Message-ID: <Ya7HN5N/5Po/x28Y@xz-m1.local>
References: <20211115075522.73795-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <3832555.7SGzcYD3YQ@nvdebian>
 <Yam9EezLTANRA+Rf@xz-m1.local>
 <2190897.LADUpQAO2C@nvdebian>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2190897.LADUpQAO2C@nvdebian>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 01:12:23PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> 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.

What I wanted to say is pte_marker_get() will make sure the caller will be
aware of the fact that the marker is a bitmask.  But it's true at least my
example might make it even more confusing..

> 
> > 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.

OK, I'll add it.  Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu