Re: [PATCH v3 1/2] mm: Abstract THP allocation

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 11.09.24 15:05, Dev Jain wrote:
> 
> On 9/11/24 18:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 11.09.24 14:53, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>
>>> On 9/11/24 14:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 11.09.24 08:55, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>>> In preparation for the second patch, abstract away the THP allocation
>>>>> logic present in the create_huge_pmd() path, which corresponds to the
>>>>> faulting case when no page is present.
>>>>>
>>>>> There should be no functional change as a result of applying
>>>>> this patch.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> +static void map_pmd_thp(struct folio *folio, struct vm_fault *vmf,
>>>>> +            struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long haddr)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +    pmd_t entry;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    entry = mk_huge_pmd(&folio->page, vma->vm_page_prot);
>>>>> +    entry = maybe_pmd_mkwrite(pmd_mkdirty(entry), vma);
>>>>> +    folio_add_new_anon_rmap(folio, vma, haddr, RMAP_EXCLUSIVE);
>>>>> +    folio_add_lru_vma(folio, vma);
>>>>> +    set_pmd_at(vma->vm_mm, haddr, vmf->pmd, entry);
>>>>> +    update_mmu_cache_pmd(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pmd);
>>>>
>>>> It's quite weird to see a mixture of haddr and vmf->address, and
>>>> likely this mixture is wrong or not not required.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at arc's update_mmu_cache_pmd() implementation, I cannot see
>>>> how passing in the unaligned address would do the right thing. But
>>>> maybe arc also doesn't trigger that code path ... who knows :)
>>>
>>> If I am reading correctly, arch/arc/mm/tlb.c: update_mmu_cache_pmd()
>>> calls update_mmu_cache_range() which is already expecting an unaligned
>>> address? But...
>>
>> So update_mmu_cache_pmd() calls
>>
>>      update_mmu_cache_range(NULL, vma, addr, &pte, HPAGE_PMD_NR);
>>
>> But update_mmu_cache_range() only aligns it *to page boundary*:
>>
>>      unsigned long vaddr = vaddr_unaligned & PAGE_MASK;
> 
> Ah, totally missed that it was PAGE_MASK. Thanks.
>>
>> We obtain the correct hugepage-aligned physical address from the PTE
>>
>>      phys_addr_t paddr = pte_val(*ptep) & PAGE_MASK_PHYS;
>>
>> Then, we look at the offset in our folio
>>
>>      unsigned long offset = offset_in_folio(folio, paddr);
>>
>> And adjust both vaddr and paddr
>>
>>      paddr -= offset;
>>      vaddr -= offset;
>>
>> To then use that combination with
>>
>>      __inv_icache_pages(paddr, vaddr, nr);
>>
>> If I am not wrong, getting a non-hugepage aligned vaddr messes up
>> things here. But only regarding the icache I think.
> 
> Looks like it...

As we are adding a fresh page where there previously wasn't anything 
mapped (no icache invaldiation required?), and because most anon 
mappings are not executable, maybe that's why nobody notices so far.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb