MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230202112915.867409-1-usama.anjum@collabora.com>
 <20230202112915.867409-4-usama.anjum@collabora.com> <CABb0KFEgsk+YidSXBYQ9mM8nVV6PuEOQf=bbNn7hsoG1hUeLZg@mail.gmail.com>
 <36ddfd75-5c58-197b-16c9-9f819099ea6d@collabora.com> <CABb0KFGWi0dtgXZ-AeUuHb55EgnwTu3JfJ9cW3ftCqezKi8dAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABb0KFGWi0dtgXZ-AeUuHb55EgnwTu3JfJ9cW3ftCqezKi8dAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:20:29 -0800
Message-ID: <CANaxB-x2OrTPziL_hgwgQ1xe-ypVrvEJZK5i4ZvmUwsLqfTcvA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/6] fs/proc/task_mmu: Implement IOCTL to get and/or
 the clear info about PTEs
To:     =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= <emmir@google.com>
Cc:     Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Paul Gofman <pgofman@codeweavers.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        Yun Zhou <yun.zhou@windriver.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@amd.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@google.com>,
        "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>, kernel@collabora.com,
        Danylo Mocherniuk <mdanylo@google.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 4:42=E2=80=AFAM Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw <emmir@go=
ogle.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 21 Feb 2023 at 11:28, Muhammad Usama Anjum
> <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Micha=C5=82,
> >
> > Thank you so much for comment!
> >
> > On 2/17/23 8:18=E2=80=AFPM, Micha=C5=82 Miros=C5=82aw wrote:
> [...]
> > > For the page-selection mechanism, currently required_mask and
> > > excluded_mask have conflicting
> > They are opposite of each other:
> > All the set bits in required_mask must be set for the page to be select=
ed.
> > All the set bits in excluded_mask must _not_ be set for the page to be
> > selected.
> >
> > > responsibilities. I suggest to rework that to:
> > > 1. negated_flags: page flags which are to be negated before applying
> > > the page selection using following masks;
> > Sorry I'm unable to understand the negation (which is XOR?). Lets look =
at
> > the truth table:
> > Page Flag       negated_flags
> > 0               0                       0
> > 0               1                       1
> > 1               0                       1
> > 1               1                       0
> >
> > If a page flag is 0 and negated_flag is 1, the result would be 1 which =
has
> > changed the page flag. It isn't making sense to me. Why the page flag b=
it
> > is being fliped?
> >
> > When Anrdei had proposed these masks, they seemed like a fancy way of
> > filtering inside kernel and it was straight forward to understand. Thes=
e
> > masks would help his use cases for CRIU. So I'd included it. Please can=
 you
> > elaborate what is the purpose of negation?
>
> The XOR is a way to invert the tested value of a flag (from positive
> to negative and the other way) without having the API with invalid
> values (with required_flags and excluded_flags you need to define a
> rule about what happens if a flag is present in both of the masks -
> either prioritise one mask over the other or reject the call).
> (Note: the XOR is applied only to the value of the flags for the
> purpose of testing page-selection criteria.)

Micha=C5=82,

Your API isn't much different from the current one, but it requires
a bit more brain activity for understanding.

The current set of masks can be easy translated to the new one:
negated_flags =3D excluded_flags
required_flags_new =3D excluded_flags | required_flags

As for invalid values, I think it is an advantage of the current API.
I mean we can easily detect invalid values and return EINVAL. With your
API, such mistakes will be undetectable.

As for priorities, I don't see this problem here If I don't miss something.

We can rewrite the code this way:
```
if (required_mask && ((page_flags & required_mask) !=3D required_mask)
  skip page;
if (anyof_mask && !(page_flags & anyof_mask))
  skip page;
if (page_flags & excluded_mask)
  skip page;
```

I think the result is always the same no matter in what order each
mask is applied.

Thanks,
Andrei