Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::3:5 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::3:5;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20231114014313.67232-1-v-songbaohua@oppo.com> <d8fd421e-00f3-453e-9665-df3fdcc239eb@redhat.com>
 <CAGsJ_4wD9Ug=CLi6Cdw3Ve5q8-1u7MmipLtEGQTfWmU9BJFJOQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <864489b3-5d85-4145-b5bb-5d8a74b9b92d@redhat.com> <CAGsJ_4wsWzhosZJWegOb8ggoON3KdiH1mO-8mFZd7kWcn6diuw@mail.gmail.com>
 <ZVfA2Z8XyD3qtTMZ@casper.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZVfA2Z8XyD3qtTMZ@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Barry Song <21cnbao@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 18 Nov 2023 04:36:42 +0800
Message-ID: <CAGsJ_4w0f+1-8o+5-Vaj2xfO1Q5tm=AJQVrsST50nWihf02ynQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC V3 PATCH] arm64: mm: swap: save and restore mte tags for
 large folios
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>, steven.price@arm.com,
        akpm@linux-foundation.org, ryan.roberts@arm.com,
        catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, mhocko@suse.com,
        shy828301@gmail.com, v-songbaohua@oppo.com,
        wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, xiang@kernel.org, ying.huang@intel.com,
        yuzhao@google.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Nov 18, 2023 at 3:37=E2=80=AFAM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org=
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Nov 17, 2023 at 07:47:00AM +0800, Barry Song wrote:
> > This has been discussed. Steven, Ryan and I all don't think this is a g=
ood
> > option. in case we have a large folio with 16 basepages, as do_swap_pag=
e
> > can only map one base page for each page fault, that means we have
> > to restore 16(tags we restore in each page fault) * 16(the times of pag=
e faults)
> > for this large folio.
>
> That doesn't seem all that hard to fix?  Call set_ptes() instead of
> set_pte_at().  The biggest thing, I guess, is making sure that all
> the PTEs you're going to set up are still pte_none().

I guess you mean all are still swap entries in ptes. some risks  I can see

1. vma might be splitted after folios added into swapcache, for example
unmap or mprotect a part of large folios from userspace

2. vma is not splitted, but some basepages are MADV_DONTNEED
within the folios.

3. basepages in the large folio might become having different permissions
on R/W/X.

for example, if a large folio has 16 basepages, as userspace is still
working at 4kb, userspace can mprotect RD_ONLY for a part of them,
in this case, 16PTEs will still be swap entries, but the re-use for
write fault can't work at folio granularity.

I need to consider all the above DoubleMap/split risks rather than simply
checking PTEs as userspace is still 4KB.

>

Thanks
Barry