Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <098c1480-416d-bca9-cedb-ca495df69b64@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Thu, 18 Aug 2022 13:45:46 +0800
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.12.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm/damon: Validate if the pmd entry is present before
 accessing
To:     Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Cc:     sj@kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        damon@lists.linux.dev, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
References: <2838b6737bc259cf575ff11fd1c4b7fdb340fa73.1660717122.git.baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
 <5173E308-2403-4667-9162-865CF7F11838@linux.dev>
 <ceaa1e54-e79a-86c7-cf35-d4159088f0f3@linux.alibaba.com>
 <6F99AE03-3C74-4E5B-87E1-6F3232BEEBB5@linux.dev>
 <ad3f36ca-5027-45a5-cd48-dc32bf968c9d@linux.alibaba.com>
 <8C1A5089-2830-407D-8FF3-2F0F92984645@linux.dev>
From:   Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
In-Reply-To: <8C1A5089-2830-407D-8FF3-2F0F92984645@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk


On 8/18/2022 1:12 PM, Muchun Song wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 18, 2022, at 13:07, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 8/18/2022 11:39 AM, Muchun Song wrote:
>>>> On Aug 18, 2022, at 10:57, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 在 8/18/2022 10:41 AM, Muchun Song 写道:
>>>>>> On Aug 17, 2022, at 14:21, Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The pmd_huge() is used to validate if the pmd entry is mapped by a huge
>>>>>> page, also including the case of non-present (migration or hwpoisoned)
>>>>>> pmd entry on arm64 or x86 architectures. Thus we should validate if it
>>>>>> is present before making the pmd entry old or getting young state,
>>>>>> otherwise we can not get the correct corresponding page.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> mm/damon/vaddr.c | 10 ++++++++++
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/damon/vaddr.c b/mm/damon/vaddr.c
>>>>>> index 3c7b9d6..1d16c6c 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/damon/vaddr.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/damon/vaddr.c
>>>>>> @@ -304,6 +304,11 @@ static int damon_mkold_pmd_entry(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 	if (pmd_huge(*pmd)) {
>>>>>> 		ptl = pmd_lock(walk->mm, pmd);
>>>>>> +		if (!pmd_present(*pmd)) {
>>>>> Unluckily, we should use pte_present here. See commit c9d398fa23788. We can use
>>>>> huge_ptep_get() to get a hugetlb pte, so it’s better to put the check after
>>>>> pmd_huge.
>>>>
>>>> IMO this is not the case for hugetlb, and the hugetlb case will be handled by damon_mkold_hugetlb_entry(), which already used pte_present() for hugetlb case.
>>> Well, I thought it is hugetlb related since I saw the usage of pmd_huge. If it is THP case, why
>>> not use pmd_trans_huge?
>>
>> IIUC, it can not guarantee the pmd is present if pmd_trans_huge() returns true on all architectures, at least on X86, we still need pmd_present() validation. So changing to pmd_trans_huge() does not make code simpler from my side, and I prefer to keep this patch.
> 
> I am not suggesting you change it to pmd_trans_huge() in this patch, I am just expressing
> my curious. At least, it is a little confusing to me.

OK.

>>
>> Maybe we can send another cleanup patch to replace pmd_huge() with pmd_trans_huge() for THP case to make code more readable? How do you think? Thanks.
> 
> Yep, make sense to me.

OK. I can add a cleanup patch in next version. Thanks for your input.