Received: by 2002:a05:7412:b101:b0:e2:908c:2ebd with SMTP id az1csp3184866rdb; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:37:44 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHCmxOHzuLARttSY5AFC84bnn+arbfT2m5FSlowdT2vm6+wPlFXA8wwnXamUJcjQOiqLMF/ X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:e84a:b0:1cc:2be7:c0f2 with SMTP id t10-20020a170902e84a00b001cc2be7c0f2mr1759961plg.13.1700131064016; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:37:44 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1700131064; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=r2ZAwy3F115H/IEsR//9vcd+rCe1r6AVHyXkyx+K4KyRA+zl3y2E9NaTEa9p2E7dxv pnXlNize5G1MBAaX+7PkB7bYObddlj00/cO9jpex7sdT7IZoCyFJKmjVXaga2XZfo+HY nMGaM5VYqpJf0+UL8VXiH6CrAB9nAcdXFIHUB45z7MJpFj8OccKZIXysl2X7GCz9aQKG k1Dxi1dmXAj/HhLKiOf1dm0rTNq2yRROdz1UytVXeBM4scaMvR/Xlo/RIUHqtzx5Tlwf 0miOl1GuXqcnMqfcOm0Nq1sTywgglUEs7il8hBrhauB5MgA6dDlWMDXVeJXf30HecZ5d zQZA== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from :references:cc:to:content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version :date:message-id; bh=VBQ3cVCbvnnlHF1CSRD86aEyDn7Y6tRkOm6xvePpWAE=; fh=jhpOHYOWhTq4QfKsrnlTKyNkOVJ3+M0y31U3HsaOZYA=; b=RJqQyr3fE3zlz9CKNYJvjvmag2XXNbC6V8xzLtAIdUCPXdNR/VKWs8yjHKdEz1ktfW Zoo30YVPjBA/s9E3zVJpVCUvqBPMusqy2HYWE/A7d6ene/QyxNXti0lKhoUl/yC1gb/t I5P0FBAOoysysSDh/UJfL3qDcuImjycxZciupPSHYu+iRwx4yRrKBG/rLrpTIw7NFMGC N/rjxbKyc9RplQ4V117PCgrUci75maLWt6bxJxbiCBQ1AR9ThVzlFHqPDfvdv+NrjZEV cBiHPbtlS0bX4o9GWi0Y+YLRfpCV4Ywk5Rlq5TqHdWVBjHtLi3dkU5y64rZ3Cx4DplBy jszw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Return-Path: Received: from snail.vger.email (snail.vger.email. [23.128.96.37]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id ik29-20020a170902ab1d00b001ca85c591f5si11195751plb.287.2023.11.16.02.37.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:37:43 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.37; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.37 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=arm.com Received: from out1.vger.email (depot.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::3:0]) by snail.vger.email (Postfix) with ESMTP id A858D80657E3; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:36:56 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.103.11 at snail.vger.email Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1345018AbjKPKg4 (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 16 Nov 2023 05:36:56 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:54654 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S230315AbjKPKgz (ORCPT ); Thu, 16 Nov 2023 05:36:55 -0500 Received: from foss.arm.com (foss.arm.com [217.140.110.172]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4A51B8 for ; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:36:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.121.207.14]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47AA51595; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:37:36 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.1.35.163] (XHFQ2J9959.cambridge.arm.com [10.1.35.163]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1F8C23F6C4; Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:36:47 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2023 10:36:45 +0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 01/14] mm: Batch-copy PTE ranges during fork() Content-Language: en-GB To: David Hildenbrand , kernel test robot , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Ard Biesheuvel , Marc Zyngier , Oliver Upton , James Morse , Suzuki K Poulose , Zenghui Yu , Andrey Ryabinin , Alexander Potapenko , Andrey Konovalov , Dmitry Vyukov , Vincenzo Frascino , Andrew Morton , Anshuman Khandual , Matthew Wilcox , Yu Zhao , Mark Rutland , Kefeng Wang , John Hubbard , Zi Yan Cc: oe-kbuild-all@lists.linux.dev, Linux Memory Management List , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20231115163018.1303287-2-ryan.roberts@arm.com> <202311160516.kHhfmjvl-lkp@intel.com> <4e8d329c-eda6-4ff8-bb56-8924bb4583b2@redhat.com> From: Ryan Roberts In-Reply-To: <4e8d329c-eda6-4ff8-bb56-8924bb4583b2@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org X-Greylist: Sender passed SPF test, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.4 (snail.vger.email [0.0.0.0]); Thu, 16 Nov 2023 02:36:56 -0800 (PST) On 16/11/2023 10:12, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 16.11.23 11:07, Ryan Roberts wrote: >> Hi All, >> >> Hoping for some guidance below! >> >> >> On 15/11/2023 21:26, kernel test robot wrote: >>> Hi Ryan, >>> >>> kernel test robot noticed the following build errors: >>> >>> [auto build test ERROR on akpm-mm/mm-everything] >>> [also build test ERROR on linus/master v6.7-rc1 next-20231115] >>> [cannot apply to arm64/for-next/core efi/next] >>> [If your patch is applied to the wrong git tree, kindly drop us a note. >>> And when submitting patch, we suggest to use '--base' as documented in >>> https://git-scm.com/docs/git-format-patch#_base_tree_information] >>> >>> url:    >>> https://github.com/intel-lab-lkp/linux/commits/Ryan-Roberts/mm-Batch-copy-PTE-ranges-during-fork/20231116-010123 >>> base:   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/akpm/mm.git >>> mm-everything >>> patch link:    >>> https://lore.kernel.org/r/20231115163018.1303287-2-ryan.roberts%40arm.com >>> patch subject: [PATCH v2 01/14] mm: Batch-copy PTE ranges during fork() >>> config: arm-randconfig-002-20231116 >>> (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231116/202311160516.kHhfmjvl-lkp@intel.com/config) >>> compiler: arm-linux-gnueabi-gcc (GCC) 13.2.0 >>> reproduce (this is a W=1 build): >>> (https://download.01.org/0day-ci/archive/20231116/202311160516.kHhfmjvl-lkp@intel.com/reproduce) >>> >>> If you fix the issue in a separate patch/commit (i.e. not just a new version of >>> the same patch/commit), kindly add following tags >>> | Reported-by: kernel test robot >>> | Closes: >>> https://lore.kernel.org/oe-kbuild-all/202311160516.kHhfmjvl-lkp@intel.com/ >>> >>> All errors (new ones prefixed by >>): >>> >>>     mm/memory.c: In function 'folio_nr_pages_cont_mapped': >>>>> mm/memory.c:969:16: error: implicit declaration of function 'pte_pgprot'; >>>>> did you mean 'ptep_get'? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration] >>>       969 |         prot = pte_pgprot(pte_mkold(pte_mkclean(ptent))); >>>           |                ^~~~~~~~~~ >>>           |                ptep_get >>>     cc1: some warnings being treated as errors >> >> It turns out that pte_pgprot() is not universal; its only implemented by >> architectures that select CONFIG_HAVE_IOREMAP_PROT (currently arc, arm64, >> loongarch, mips, powerpc, s390, sh, x86). >> >> I'm using it in core-mm to help calculate the number of "contiguously mapped" >> pages within a folio (note that's not the same as arm64's notion of >> contpte-mapped. I just want to know that there are N physically contiguous pages >> mapped virtually contiguously with the same permissions). And I'm using >> pte_pgprot() to extract the permissions for each pte to compare. It's important >> that we compare the permissions because just because the pages belongs to the >> same folio doesn't imply they are mapped with the same permissions; think >> mprotect()ing a sub-range. >> >> I don't have a great idea for how to fix this - does anyone have any thoughts? > > KIS :) fork() operates on individual VMAs if I am not daydreaming. > > Just check for the obvious pte_write()/dirty/ and you'll be fine. Yes, that seems much simpler! I think we might have to be careful about the uffd wp bit too? I think that's it - are there any other exotic bits that might need to be considered? > > If your code tries to optimize "between VMAs", you really shouldn't be doing > that at this point. No I'm not doing that; It's one VMA at a time. > > If someone did an mprotect(), there are separate VMAs, and you shouldn't be > looking at the PTEs belonging to a different VMA. > Yep understood, thanks.