Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-189199-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:40f1:3f00::1;
Date: Fri, 24 May 2024 19:55:46 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>,
	Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@redhat.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
	Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, x86@kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/2] mm/x86/pat: Do proper PAT bit shift for large
 mappings
Message-ID: <ZlEpAoNRIc1sh-xE@x1n>
References: <20240523223745.395337-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20240523223745.395337-3-peterx@redhat.com>
 <f19f63ba-c436-4e39-ab86-78c80b1af667@intel.com>
 <Zk_MGmfYsY9dt2Uo@x1n>
 <7b6b6430-0237-4512-b99b-9eb815b3dc68@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <7b6b6430-0237-4512-b99b-9eb815b3dc68@intel.com>

On Thu, May 23, 2024 at 08:30:19PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 5/23/24 16:07, Peter Xu wrote:
> > Probably not..  I think I can define a pgprot_to_large() globally, pointing
> > that to pgprot_4k_2_large() on x86 and make the fallback to be noop.  And
> > if there's a new version I'll guarantee to run over my cross compilers.
> 
> I guess that would be functional, but it would be a bit mean to
> everybody else.
> 
> > Any comments on the idea itself?  Do we have a problem, or maybe I
> > overlooked something?
> 
> I think it's probably unnecessary to inflict this particular x86-ism on
> generic code.  The arch-generic 'prot' should have PAT at its 4k
> (_PAGE_BIT_PAT) position and then p*d_mkhuge() can shift it into the
> _PAGE_BIT_PAT_LARGE spot.

Right that's another option indeed.

It's just that I found it might in many cases be better when we have the
API separately properly and making the pairs matching each other.

For example, it could be clearer if pxx_mkhuge() does exactly what
pxx_leaf() would check against.

PS: I hoped it's called pxx_huge() already to make the name paired with
each other; afaict we called it pxx_leaf() only because pxx_huge() used to
be "abused" by hugetlbfs before.. now it's gone.

The other thing is we mostly only need these knobs for special maps like
pfnmaps, am I right?  OTOH we use WB for RAMs, and maybe we don't want to
bother any PAT stuff when the kernel is installing a THP anonymous?

IMHO having pgprot_to_large() is fine even if only x86 has it; it's really
like pfn tracking itself which is noop for !x86. but I'll follow your
advise if you still insist; I don't really have a strong opinion.

But if so I'd also like to mention a 3rd option, which is to have
pxx_mkhuge_prot(), fallback to pxx_mkhuge() for !x86.  That'll make
pxx_huge() untainted for x86.  I'm not sure whether that would ease the
same concern, though.

In all cases, thanks for confirming this issue, I appreciate that.  Let me
know if you have any comment on patch 1 too; that one isn't a problem so
far iiuc, but it can be soon.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu