Received-SPF: Pass (protection.outlook.com: domain of nvidia.com designates
 12.22.5.238 as permitted sender) receiver=protection.outlook.com;
 client-ip=12.22.5.238; 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 03/23] mm: Check against orig_pte for finish_fault()
Date:   Thu, 16 Dec 2021 17:23:40 +1100
Message-ID: <1760244.MLhrlNdmRJ@nvdebian>
In-Reply-To: <YbrTtx7gtOX+ZCia@xz-m1.local>
References: <20211115075522.73795-1-peterx@redhat.com> <YbrQ2bsEYsfHrIIV@xz-m1.local> <YbrTtx7gtOX+ZCia@xz-m1.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalArrivalTime: 16 Dec 2021 06:23:46.4530
 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Network-Message-Id: 142519a8-73a1-4eeb-d6f9-08d9c05c9dbd
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-Id: 43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-OriginalAttributedTenantConnectingIp: TenantId=43083d15-7273-40c1-b7db-39efd9ccc17a;Ip=[12.22.5.238];Helo=[mail.nvidia.com]
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthSource: CO1NAM11FT026.eop-nam11.prod.protection.outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-AuthAs: Anonymous
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-FromEntityHeader: HybridOnPrem
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: MN2PR12MB3885
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Thursday, 16 December 2021 4:50:47 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 01:38:33PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 04:01:47PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > On Monday, 15 November 2021 6:55:02 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > We used to check against none pte and in those cases orig_pte should always be
> > > > none pte anyway.
> > > 
> > > Is that always true? From what I can see in handle_pte_fault() orig_pte only
> > > gets initialised in the !pmd_none() case so might not be pte_none.
> > 
> > I believe it's true, otherwise I must have overlooked.
> > 
> > IMHO it's not "when we set orig_pte" that matters - note that finish_fault()
> > (that this patch modifies) is only called for file-backed memories, and it's
> > only called in do_fault() where the pte is not mapped at all.
> > 
> > DAX seems to call it too, but still DAX comes from do_fault() too, afaict.
> > 
> > The pte will not be mapped in two cases in handle_pte_fault():
> > 
> >   - When pmd_none
> > 
> >   - When !pmd_none, however if we find that pte_none==true, that's:
> > 
> >         if (pte_none(vmf->orig_pte)) {
> >                 pte_unmap(vmf->pte);
> >                 vmf->pte = NULL;
> >         }
> > 
> > So when we're already in do_fault(), afaict, orig_pte must be pte_none().
> > Another side note is that, IIUC pte_none() is a looser check than the
> > pte_val()==0 and it should be arch dependent.
> 
> So one more thing I forgot to mention... Of course above is based on the fact
> that orig_pte will be initialized to zero when creating vmf structure, and
> that's done in __handle_mm_fault():
> 
> 	struct vm_fault vmf = {
> 		.vma = vma,
> 		.address = address & PAGE_MASK,
> 		.flags = flags,
> 		.pgoff = linear_page_index(vma, address),
> 		.gfp_mask = __get_fault_gfp_mask(vma),
> 	};
> 
> I'm not sure whether I should explicitly set it to pte_val(0), in most C
> programs we'll already assume it's a proper reset of orig_pte value in c99
> initialization format, but if anyone thinks we should do that explicitly plus
> some comments I can do that too.

Ok, that was really my question. Is:

	if (likely(pte_none(*vmf->pte)))

equivalent to:

	if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, __pte(0))))

for every architecture? Looking at Xtensa for example suggests it might not be:

arch/xtensa/include/asm/pgtable.h:
# define pte_none(pte)	 (pte_val(pte) == (_PAGE_CA_INVALID | _PAGE_USER))

> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > > 
> > > > This change prepares us to be able to call do_fault() on !none ptes.  For
> > > > example, we should allow that to happen for pte marker so that we can restore
> > > > information out of the pte markers.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  mm/memory.c | 2 +-
> > > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > > > index 04662b010005..d5966d9e24c3 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > > @@ -4052,7 +4052,7 @@ vm_fault_t finish_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > >  				      vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
> > > >  	ret = 0;
> > > >  	/* Re-check under ptl */
> > > > -	if (likely(pte_none(*vmf->pte)))
> > > > +	if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte)))
> > > >  		do_set_pte(vmf, page, vmf->address);
> > > >  	else
> > > >  		ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
>