Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-119615-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Message-ID: <f6996c4f-da60-4267-bcf1-09e4fd40c91b@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2024 18:38:01 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v1 3/4] mm/memory: Use ptep_get_lockless_norecency()
 for orig_pte
Content-Language: en-US
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>, Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
 Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
 Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@linux.intel.com>,
 Jiri Olsa <jolsa@kernel.org>, Ian Rogers <irogers@google.com>,
 Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@intel.com>,
 Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
 Muchun Song <muchun.song@linux.dev>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240215121756.2734131-1-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <20240215121756.2734131-4-ryan.roberts@arm.com>
 <e0bdbd5e-a098-422a-90af-9cf07ce378a4@redhat.com>
 <febd0c97-8869-4ce5-bd37-cbbdf5be0a43@arm.com>
From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Autocrypt: addr=david@redhat.com; keydata=
 xsFNBFXLn5EBEAC+zYvAFJxCBY9Tr1xZgcESmxVNI/0ffzE/ZQOiHJl6mGkmA1R7/uUpiCjJ
 dBrn+lhhOYjjNefFQou6478faXE6o2AhmebqT4KiQoUQFV4R7y1KMEKoSyy8hQaK1umALTdL
 QZLQMzNE74ap+GDK0wnacPQFpcG1AE9RMq3aeErY5tujekBS32jfC/7AnH7I0v1v1TbbK3Gp
 XNeiN4QroO+5qaSr0ID2sz5jtBLRb15RMre27E1ImpaIv2Jw8NJgW0k/D1RyKCwaTsgRdwuK
 Kx/Y91XuSBdz0uOyU/S8kM1+ag0wvsGlpBVxRR/xw/E8M7TEwuCZQArqqTCmkG6HGcXFT0V9
 PXFNNgV5jXMQRwU0O/ztJIQqsE5LsUomE//bLwzj9IVsaQpKDqW6TAPjcdBDPLHvriq7kGjt
 WhVhdl0qEYB8lkBEU7V2Yb+SYhmhpDrti9Fq1EsmhiHSkxJcGREoMK/63r9WLZYI3+4W2rAc
 UucZa4OT27U5ZISjNg3Ev0rxU5UH2/pT4wJCfxwocmqaRr6UYmrtZmND89X0KigoFD/XSeVv
 jwBRNjPAubK9/k5NoRrYqztM9W6sJqrH8+UWZ1Idd/DdmogJh0gNC0+N42Za9yBRURfIdKSb
 B3JfpUqcWwE7vUaYrHG1nw54pLUoPG6sAA7Mehl3nd4pZUALHwARAQABzSREYXZpZCBIaWxk
 ZW5icmFuZCA8ZGF2aWRAcmVkaGF0LmNvbT7CwZgEEwEIAEICGwMGCwkIBwMCBhUIAgkKCwQW
 AgMBAh4BAheAAhkBFiEEG9nKrXNcTDpGDfzKTd4Q9wD/g1oFAl8Ox4kFCRKpKXgACgkQTd4Q
 9wD/g1oHcA//a6Tj7SBNjFNM1iNhWUo1lxAja0lpSodSnB2g4FCZ4R61SBR4l/psBL73xktp
 rDHrx4aSpwkRP6Epu6mLvhlfjmkRG4OynJ5HG1gfv7RJJfnUdUM1z5kdS8JBrOhMJS2c/gPf
 wv1TGRq2XdMPnfY2o0CxRqpcLkx4vBODvJGl2mQyJF/gPepdDfcT8/PY9BJ7FL6Hrq1gnAo4
 3Iv9qV0JiT2wmZciNyYQhmA1V6dyTRiQ4YAc31zOo2IM+xisPzeSHgw3ONY/XhYvfZ9r7W1l
 pNQdc2G+o4Di9NPFHQQhDw3YTRR1opJaTlRDzxYxzU6ZnUUBghxt9cwUWTpfCktkMZiPSDGd
 KgQBjnweV2jw9UOTxjb4LXqDjmSNkjDdQUOU69jGMUXgihvo4zhYcMX8F5gWdRtMR7DzW/YE
 BgVcyxNkMIXoY1aYj6npHYiNQesQlqjU6azjbH70/SXKM5tNRplgW8TNprMDuntdvV9wNkFs
 9TyM02V5aWxFfI42+aivc4KEw69SE9KXwC7FSf5wXzuTot97N9Phj/Z3+jx443jo2NR34XgF
 89cct7wJMjOF7bBefo0fPPZQuIma0Zym71cP61OP/i11ahNye6HGKfxGCOcs5wW9kRQEk8P9
 M/k2wt3mt/fCQnuP/mWutNPt95w9wSsUyATLmtNrwccz63XOwU0EVcufkQEQAOfX3n0g0fZz
 Bgm/S2zF/kxQKCEKP8ID+Vz8sy2GpDvveBq4H2Y34XWsT1zLJdvqPI4af4ZSMxuerWjXbVWb
 T6d4odQIG0fKx4F8NccDqbgHeZRNajXeeJ3R7gAzvWvQNLz4piHrO/B4tf8svmRBL0ZB5P5A
 2uhdwLU3NZuK22zpNn4is87BPWF8HhY0L5fafgDMOqnf4guJVJPYNPhUFzXUbPqOKOkL8ojk
 CXxkOFHAbjstSK5Ca3fKquY3rdX3DNo+EL7FvAiw1mUtS+5GeYE+RMnDCsVFm/C7kY8c2d0G
 NWkB9pJM5+mnIoFNxy7YBcldYATVeOHoY4LyaUWNnAvFYWp08dHWfZo9WCiJMuTfgtH9tc75
 7QanMVdPt6fDK8UUXIBLQ2TWr/sQKE9xtFuEmoQGlE1l6bGaDnnMLcYu+Asp3kDT0w4zYGsx
 5r6XQVRH4+5N6eHZiaeYtFOujp5n+pjBaQK7wUUjDilPQ5QMzIuCL4YjVoylWiBNknvQWBXS
 lQCWmavOT9sttGQXdPCC5ynI+1ymZC1ORZKANLnRAb0NH/UCzcsstw2TAkFnMEbo9Zu9w7Kv
 AxBQXWeXhJI9XQssfrf4Gusdqx8nPEpfOqCtbbwJMATbHyqLt7/oz/5deGuwxgb65pWIzufa
 N7eop7uh+6bezi+rugUI+w6DABEBAAHCwXwEGAEIACYCGwwWIQQb2cqtc1xMOkYN/MpN3hD3
 AP+DWgUCXw7HsgUJEqkpoQAKCRBN3hD3AP+DWrrpD/4qS3dyVRxDcDHIlmguXjC1Q5tZTwNB
 boaBTPHSy/Nksu0eY7x6HfQJ3xajVH32Ms6t1trDQmPx2iP5+7iDsb7OKAb5eOS8h+BEBDeq
 3ecsQDv0fFJOA9ag5O3LLNk+3x3q7e0uo06XMaY7UHS341ozXUUI7wC7iKfoUTv03iO9El5f
 XpNMx/YrIMduZ2+nd9Di7o5+KIwlb2mAB9sTNHdMrXesX8eBL6T9b+MZJk+mZuPxKNVfEQMQ
 a5SxUEADIPQTPNvBewdeI80yeOCrN+Zzwy/Mrx9EPeu59Y5vSJOx/z6OUImD/GhX7Xvkt3kq
 Er5KTrJz3++B6SH9pum9PuoE/k+nntJkNMmQpR4MCBaV/J9gIOPGodDKnjdng+mXliF3Ptu6
 3oxc2RCyGzTlxyMwuc2U5Q7KtUNTdDe8T0uE+9b8BLMVQDDfJjqY0VVqSUwImzTDLX9S4g/8
 kC4HRcclk8hpyhY2jKGluZO0awwTIMgVEzmTyBphDg/Gx7dZU1Xf8HFuE+UZ5UDHDTnwgv7E
 th6RC9+WrhDNspZ9fJjKWRbveQgUFCpe1sa77LAw+XFrKmBHXp9ZVIe90RMe2tRL06BGiRZr
 jPrnvUsUUsjRoRNJjKKA/REq+sAnhkNPPZ/NNMjaZ5b8Tovi8C0tmxiCHaQYqj7G2rgnT0kt
 WNyWQQ==
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <febd0c97-8869-4ce5-bd37-cbbdf5be0a43@arm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 26.03.24 18:27, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 26/03/2024 17:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 15.02.24 13:17, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> Let's convert handle_pte_fault()'s use of ptep_get_lockless() to
>>> ptep_get_lockless_norecency() to save orig_pte.
>>>
>>> There are a number of places that follow this model:
>>>
>>>       orig_pte = ptep_get_lockless(ptep)
>>>       ...
>>>       <lock>
>>>       if (!pte_same(orig_pte, ptep_get(ptep)))
>>>               // RACE!
>>>       ...
>>>       <unlock>
>>>
>>> So we need to be careful to convert all of those to use
>>> pte_same_norecency() so that the access and dirty bits are excluded from
>>> the comparison.
>>>
>>> Additionally there are a couple of places that genuinely rely on the
>>> access and dirty bits of orig_pte, but with some careful refactoring, we
>>> can use ptep_get() once we are holding the lock to achieve equivalent
>>> logic.
>>
>> We really should document that changed behavior somewhere where it can be easily
>> found: that orig_pte might have incomplete/stale accessed/dirty information.
> 
> I could add it to the orig_pte definition in the `struct vm_fault`?
> 
>>
>>
>>> @@ -5343,7 +5356,7 @@ static vm_fault_t handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>                             vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
>>>            if (unlikely(!vmf->pte))
>>>                return 0;
>>> -        vmf->orig_pte = ptep_get_lockless(vmf->pte);
>>> +        vmf->orig_pte = ptep_get_lockless_norecency(vmf->pte);
>>>            vmf->flags |= FAULT_FLAG_ORIG_PTE_VALID;
>>>
>>>            if (pte_none(vmf->orig_pte)) {
>>> @@ -5363,7 +5376,7 @@ static vm_fault_t handle_pte_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>
>>>        spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
>>>        entry = vmf->orig_pte;
>>> -    if (unlikely(!pte_same(ptep_get(vmf->pte), entry))) {
>>> +    if (unlikely(!pte_same_norecency(ptep_get(vmf->pte), entry))) {
>>>            update_mmu_tlb(vmf->vma, vmf->address, vmf->pte);
>>>            goto unlock;
>>
>> I was wondering about the following:
>>
>> Assume the PTE is not dirty.
>>
>> Thread 1 does
> 
> Sorry not sure what threads have to do with this? How is the vmf shared between
> threads? What have I misunderstood...

Assume we have a HW that does not have HW-managed access/dirty bits. One 
that ends up using generic ptep_set_access_flags(). Access/dirty bits 
are always updated under PT lock.

Then, imagine two threads. One is the the fault path here. another 
thread performs some other magic that sets the PTE dirty under PTL.

> 
>>
>> vmf->orig_pte = ptep_get_lockless_norecency(vmf->pte)
>> /* not dirty */
>>
>> /* Now, thread 2 ends up setting the PTE dirty under PT lock. */
>>
>> spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
>> entry = vmf->orig_pte;
>> if (unlikely(!pte_same(ptep_get(vmf->pte), entry))) {
>>      ...
>> }
>> ...
>> entry = pte_mkyoung(entry);
> 
> Do you mean pte_mkdirty() here? You're talking about dirty everywhere else.

No, that is just thread 1 seeing "oh, nothing to do" and then goes ahead 
and unconditionally does that in handle_pte_fault().

> 
>> if (ptep_set_access_flags(vmf->vma, ...)
>> ...
>> pte_unmap_unlock(vmf->pte, vmf->ptl);
>>
>>
>> Generic ptep_set_access_flags() will do another pte_same() check and realize
>> "hey, there was a change!" let's update the PTE!
>>
>> set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, address, ptep, entry);
> 
> This is called from the generic ptep_set_access_flags() in your example, right?
> 

Yes.

>>
>> would overwrite the dirty bit set by thread 2.
> 
> I'm not really sure what you are getting at... Is your concern that there is a
> race where the page could become dirty in the meantime and it now gets lost? I
> think that's why arm64 overrides ptep_set_access_flags(); since the hw can
> update access/dirty we have to deal with the races.

My concern is that your patch can in subtle ways lead to use losing PTE 
dirty bits on architectures that don't have the HW-managed dirty bit. 
They do exist ;)

Arm64 should be fine in that regard.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb