From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13807C43334 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 09:39:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 81B8B6B0072; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 05:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 7CAFF6B0073; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 05:39:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 693D86B0074; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 05:39:34 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0010.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.10]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A8EA6B0072 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 05:39:34 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin27.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EEEA1C16E4 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 09:39:34 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 79706980668.27.D7BE036 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf02.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B3A780051 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 09:39:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1658309972; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vGxXUHt0JfxzO2wlEKH/S8YYCRAzyPaR+NasW2jhftA=; b=MgnwJqyzoU3qMumgo+boQodpDvE8Ysze6eNCVONSLdIw3ZSDBj6tLdJ+IarQSeUMxqM7C+ jXD+/yEReMebgdSinyH1FNk7XIwZi5Gv3XZJ/g6KRzVhBlcgaLISIMQ0Z091DjiNMeXzme J2Up4ZMdSEoj5B9tHuZE3FtnXHlyKaE= Received: from mail-wm1-f72.google.com (mail-wm1-f72.google.com [209.85.128.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-591-OFMkMPrMNgGIVQZmBpXQjg-1; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 05:39:31 -0400 X-MC-Unique: OFMkMPrMNgGIVQZmBpXQjg-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f72.google.com with SMTP id h65-20020a1c2144000000b003a30cae106cso961757wmh.8 for ; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 02:39:31 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:mime-version:user-agent:subject :content-language:to:cc:references:from:organization:in-reply-to :content-transfer-encoding; bh=vGxXUHt0JfxzO2wlEKH/S8YYCRAzyPaR+NasW2jhftA=; b=QZG8UgexfgBcVg08eT5wjqynfuayCyy6HbVEsl4NchnymHviqZXQCRpqRJiM/VSFoY R03rfPYdAWN460w0YLI+up/xjQVguA+qUEThlVNUTvJ2VDynxEBF09i2j9QlW33SpvAn pSNlwlEoM2QHv2XfQRMndqbJbZI0XDOuxbKG6Ri++K/yfiZQZ8YIfpfm/2kcRQ38C/XK RigeUKvxlLX5MH8y/g/pRJkws9XbIsCDUXyP1gze8M+hHfCEwzQdK1gkjkILNwLuegv7 tuyul/CEF6cFFlSYeJJ8XJHxmWuCW1m4c1PSoGy5Eem1o2FQIksCgBAEBh74QZN6fnUD VaFQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9ejxcddFwtbegWjiwj7bESCJlc9pWv5yeUVUGwI6J9DI+BcAp7 5q0P5LGIyahSwFyCxV1kurDnenHi+C2uERoFs5WYNw6/oSAlIUAdIesr19QasIW7eWvcVQlIsWv ifFcF9AgBxlI= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1545:b0:21d:8f3e:a0bd with SMTP id 5-20020a056000154500b0021d8f3ea0bdmr30658055wry.697.1658309970561; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 02:39:30 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1uSBJcT0KSj/yskIB0kKZ+SoBc2evqDzxLK35JoDwI6XTLe7tbE4VLHxgMH47vdcBVuIwRwaA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1545:b0:21d:8f3e:a0bd with SMTP id 5-20020a056000154500b0021d8f3ea0bdmr30658035wry.697.1658309970332; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 02:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2003:cb:c706:e00:8d96:5dba:6bc4:6e89? (p200300cbc7060e008d965dba6bc46e89.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [2003:cb:c706:e00:8d96:5dba:6bc4:6e89]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id h8-20020a05600c28c800b003a02f957245sm1863102wmd.26.2022.07.20.02.39.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 20 Jul 2022 02:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <017facf0-7ef8-3faf-138d-3013a20b37db@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 11:39:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/14] userfaultfd: set dirty and young on writeprotect To: Peter Xu , Nadav Amit Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Mike Rapoport , Axel Rasmussen , Nadav Amit , Andrea Arcangeli , Andrew Cooper , Andy Lutomirski , Dave Hansen , Peter Zijlstra , Thomas Gleixner , Will Deacon , Yu Zhao , Nick Piggin References: <20220718120212.3180-1-namit@vmware.com> <20220718120212.3180-2-namit@vmware.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat In-Reply-To: X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Language: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1658309973; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=0nKwKOYq3RT8KBW/fWl2mKuTfiGXorRse/XDJ2/gQhPl7gcO2iXsHOI8b2CZKYH+rvK5IV I/pFk4xOXVFAw44jnHK++TfZ5qnmxWISuWphx41/CF3tNOeVbZT9tltcww/H0kKytCv3p5 m3lM0MGpVJvwCUoB2xSLABidgyarQmQ= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=MgnwJqyz; spf=none (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com has no SPF policy when checking 170.10.129.124) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1658309973; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=vGxXUHt0JfxzO2wlEKH/S8YYCRAzyPaR+NasW2jhftA=; b=4qwBG7OCQg2TLG1vpqvqg79VsvfKQVgXP0KQnegyrkW6cdYeWclJjSjdKShFrUjws+6XRP W+Yx5/xH5rZrLH8UQvpvw0xgk/LINvuu0xgZskXSbY7cWoJjDVEhjjnlzi7Mcp5L8egkPq po1WkJabMb73sHy8OqTcN2M03CPSbII= X-Rspam-User: X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 7B3A780051 Authentication-Results: imf02.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=MgnwJqyz; spf=none (imf02.hostedemail.com: domain of david@redhat.com has no SPF policy when checking 170.10.129.124) smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com X-Stat-Signature: b3aqqeyrhsm97hmdwf686j1fqz5d9qot X-HE-Tag: 1658309973-601079 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 19.07.22 22:47, Peter Xu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 05:01:59AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote: >> From: Nadav Amit >> >> When userfaultfd makes a PTE writable, it can now change the PTE >> directly, in some cases, without going triggering a page-fault first. >> Yet, doing so might leave the PTE that was write-unprotected as old and >> clean. At least on x86, this would cause a >500 cycles overhead when the >> PTE is first accessed. >> >> Use MM_CP_WILL_NEED to set the PTE as young and dirty when userfaultfd >> gets a hint that the page is likely to be used. Avoid changing the PTE >> to young and dirty in other cases to avoid excessive writeback and >> messing with the page reclamation logic. >> >> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli >> Cc: Andrew Cooper >> Cc: Andrew Morton >> Cc: Andy Lutomirski >> Cc: Dave Hansen >> Cc: David Hildenbrand >> Cc: Peter Xu >> Cc: Peter Zijlstra >> Cc: Thomas Gleixner >> Cc: Will Deacon >> Cc: Yu Zhao >> Cc: Nick Piggin >> --- >> include/linux/mm.h | 2 ++ >> mm/mprotect.c | 9 ++++++++- >> mm/userfaultfd.c | 8 ++++++-- >> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h >> index 9cc02a7e503b..4afd75ce5875 100644 >> --- a/include/linux/mm.h >> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h >> @@ -1988,6 +1988,8 @@ extern unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma, >> /* Whether this change is for write protecting */ >> #define MM_CP_UFFD_WP (1UL << 2) /* do wp */ >> #define MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE (1UL << 3) /* Resolve wp */ >> +/* Whether to try to mark entries as dirty as they are to be written */ >> +#define MM_CP_WILL_NEED (1UL << 4) >> #define MM_CP_UFFD_WP_ALL (MM_CP_UFFD_WP | \ >> MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE) >> >> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c >> index 996a97e213ad..34c2dfb68c42 100644 >> --- a/mm/mprotect.c >> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c >> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, >> bool prot_numa = cp_flags & MM_CP_PROT_NUMA; >> bool uffd_wp = cp_flags & MM_CP_UFFD_WP; >> bool uffd_wp_resolve = cp_flags & MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE; >> + bool will_need = cp_flags & MM_CP_WILL_NEED; >> >> tlb_change_page_size(tlb, PAGE_SIZE); >> >> @@ -172,6 +173,9 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, >> ptent = pte_clear_uffd_wp(ptent); >> } >> >> + if (will_need) >> + ptent = pte_mkyoung(ptent); > > For uffd path, UFFD_FLAGS_ACCESS_LIKELY|UFFD_FLAGS_WRITE_LIKELY are new > internal flags used with or without the new feature bit set. It means even > with !ACCESS_HINT we'll start to set young bit while we used not to? Is > that some kind of a light abi change? > > I'd suggest we only set will_need if ACCESS_HINT is set. > >> + >> /* >> * In some writable, shared mappings, we might want >> * to catch actual write access -- see >> @@ -187,8 +191,11 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb, >> */ >> if ((cp_flags & MM_CP_TRY_CHANGE_WRITABLE) && >> !pte_write(ptent) && >> - can_change_pte_writable(vma, addr, ptent)) >> + can_change_pte_writable(vma, addr, ptent)) { >> ptent = pte_mkwrite(ptent); >> + if (will_need) >> + ptent = pte_mkdirty(ptent); > > Can we make this unconditional? IOW to cover both: > > (1) When will_need is not set, or > (2) mprotect() too > > David's patch is good in that we merged the unprotect and CoW. However > that's not complete because the dirty bit ops are missing. > > Here IMHO we should have a standalone patch to just add the dirty bit into > this logic when we'll grant write bit. IMHO it'll make the write+dirty > bits coherent again in all paths. I'm not sure I follow. We *surely* don't want to dirty random pages (especially once in the pagecache/swapcache) simply because we change protection. Just like we don't set all pages write+dirty in a writable VMA on a read fault. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb