Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-45846-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <7612b843-cd31-4917-87c0-c26802c5bef2@arm.com>
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 12:23:51 +0530
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC v3 11/35] mm: Allow an arch to hook into folio
 allocation when VMA is known
Content-Language: en-US
To: Alexandru Elisei <alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
Cc: catalin.marinas@arm.com, will@kernel.org, oliver.upton@linux.dev,
 maz@kernel.org, james.morse@arm.com, suzuki.poulose@arm.com,
 yuzenghui@huawei.com, arnd@arndb.de, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
 mingo@redhat.com, peterz@infradead.org, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
 vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com, rostedt@goodmis.org,
 bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
 vschneid@redhat.com, mhiramat@kernel.org, rppt@kernel.org, hughd@google.com,
 pcc@google.com, steven.price@arm.com, vincenzo.frascino@arm.com,
 david@redhat.com, eugenis@google.com, kcc@google.com, hyesoo.yu@samsung.com,
 linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 kvmarm@lists.linux.dev, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 linux-trace-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240125164256.4147-1-alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
 <20240125164256.4147-12-alexandru.elisei@arm.com>
 <1e03aec4-705a-41b6-b258-0b8944d9dc0c@arm.com> <Zbje4T5tZ5k707Wg@raptor>
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
In-Reply-To: <Zbje4T5tZ5k707Wg@raptor>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 1/30/24 17:04, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 03:25:20PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>> On 1/25/24 22:12, Alexandru Elisei wrote:
>>> arm64 uses VM_HIGH_ARCH_0 and VM_HIGH_ARCH_1 for enabling MTE for a VMA.
>>> When VM_HIGH_ARCH_0, which arm64 renames to VM_MTE, is set for a VMA, and
>>> the gfp flag __GFP_ZERO is present, the __GFP_ZEROTAGS gfp flag also gets
>>> set in vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio().
>>>
>>> Expand this to be more generic by adding an arch hook that modifes the gfp
>>> flags for an allocation when the VMA is known.
>>>
>>> Note that __GFP_ZEROTAGS is ignored by the page allocator unless __GFP_ZERO
>>> is also set; from that point of view, the current behaviour is unchanged,
>>> even though the arm64 flag is set in more places.  When arm64 will have
>>> support to reuse the tag storage for data allocation, the uses of the
>>> __GFP_ZEROTAGS flag will be expanded to instruct the page allocator to try
>>> to reserve the corresponding tag storage for the pages being allocated.
>> Right but how will pushing __GFP_ZEROTAGS addition into gfp_t flags further
>> down via a new arch call back i.e arch_calc_vma_gfp() while still maintaining
>> (vma->vm_flags & VM_MTE) conditionality improve the current scenario. Because
> I'm afraid I don't follow you.

I was just asking whether the overall scope of __GFP_ZEROTAGS flag is being
increased to cover more core MM paths through this patch. I think you have
already answered that below.

> 
>> the page allocator could have still analyzed alloc flags for __GFP_ZEROTAGS
>> for any additional stuff.
>>
>> OR this just adds some new core MM paths to get __GFP_ZEROTAGS which was not
>> the case earlier via this call back.
> Before this patch: vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio() sets __GFP_ZEROTAGS.
> After this patch: vma_alloc_folio() sets __GFP_ZEROTAGS.

Understood.

> 
> This patch is about adding __GFP_ZEROTAGS for more callers.

Right, I guess that is the real motivation for this patch. But just wondering
does this cover all possible anon fault paths for converting given vma_flag's
VM_MTE flag into page alloc flag __GFP_ZEROTAGS ? Aren't there any other file
besides (mm/shmem.c) which needs to be changed to include arch_calc_vma_gfp() ?