From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wr1-f72.google.com (mail-wr1-f72.google.com [209.85.221.72]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36D4C8E0003 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 06:33:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-wr1-f72.google.com with SMTP id d10-v6so1361063wrw.6 for ; Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:33:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65]) by mx.google.com with SMTPS id b198-v6sor739896wme.27.2018.09.12.03.33.13 for (Google Transport Security); Wed, 12 Sep 2018 03:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2018 13:33:11 +0300 From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: mprotect: check page dirty when change ptes Message-ID: <20180912103311.iwytyuk4lgckad5a@kshutemo-mobl1> References: <20180912064921.31015-1-peterx@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180912064921.31015-1-peterx@redhat.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Peter Xu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Mel Gorman , Khalid Aziz , Thomas Gleixner , "David S. Miller" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Andi Kleen , Henry Willard , Anshuman Khandual , Andrea Arcangeli , Jerome Glisse , Zi Yan , linux-mm@kvack.org On Wed, Sep 12, 2018 at 02:49:21PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote: > Add an extra check on page dirty bit in change_pte_range() since there > might be case where PTE dirty bit is unset but it's actually dirtied. > One example is when a huge PMD is splitted after written: the dirty bit > will be set on the compound page however we won't have the dirty bit set > on each of the small page PTEs. > > I noticed this when debugging with a customized kernel that implemented > userfaultfd write-protect. In that case, the dirty bit will be critical > since that's required for userspace to handle the write protect page > fault (otherwise it'll get a SIGBUS with a loop of page faults). > However it should still be good even for upstream Linux to cover more > scenarios where we shouldn't need to do extra page faults on the small > pages if the previous huge page is already written, so the dirty bit > optimization path underneath can cover more. > > CC: Andrew Morton > CC: Mel Gorman > CC: Khalid Aziz > CC: Thomas Gleixner > CC: "David S. Miller" > CC: Greg Kroah-Hartman > CC: Andi Kleen > CC: Henry Willard > CC: Anshuman Khandual > CC: Andrea Arcangeli > CC: Kirill A. Shutemov > CC: Jerome Glisse > CC: Zi Yan > CC: linux-mm@kvack.org > CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu > --- > v2: > - checking the dirty bit when changing PTE entries rather than fixing up > the dirty bit when splitting the huge page PMD. > - rebase to 4.19-rc3 > > Instead of keeping this in my local tree, I'm giving it another shot to > see whether this could be acceptable for upstream since IMHO it should > still benefit the upstream. Thanks, > --- > mm/mprotect.c | 11 +++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c > index 6d331620b9e5..5fe752515161 100644 > --- a/mm/mprotect.c > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c > @@ -115,6 +115,17 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd, > if (preserve_write) > ptent = pte_mk_savedwrite(ptent); > > + /* > + * The extra PageDirty() check will make sure > + * we'll capture the dirty page even if the PTE > + * dirty bit is unset. One case is when the > + * PTE is splitted from a huge PMD, in that > + * case the dirty flag might only be set on the > + * compound page instead of this PTE. > + */ > + if (PageDirty(pte_page(ptent))) > + ptent = pte_mkdirty(ptent); > + How do you protect against concurent clearing of PG_dirty? You can end up with unaccounted dirty page. NAK. -- Kirill A. Shutemov