From: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
To: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, david@redhat.com, willy@infradead.org,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com
Cc: anshuman.khandual@arm.com, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
cl@gentwo.org, vbabka@suse.cz, mhocko@suse.com,
apopple@nvidia.com, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com, will@kernel.org,
baohua@kernel.org, jack@suse.cz, mark.rutland@arm.com,
hughd@google.com, aneesh.kumar@kernel.org,
yang@os.amperecomputing.com, peterx@redhat.com,
ioworker0@gmail.com, jglisse@google.com,
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] mm: Allocate THP on hugezeropage wp-fault
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 14:30:07 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <709c0648-c9c5-4197-83f2-64d36293b99e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ce7bb8c0-7b3d-4755-a64e-0327bf009536@arm.com>
On 9/6/24 14:13, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 06/09/2024 08:05, Dev Jain wrote:
>> On 9/5/24 18:44, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>> On 04/09/2024 11:09, Dev Jain wrote:
>>>> Introduce do_huge_zero_wp_pmd() to handle wp-fault on a hugezeropage and
>>>> replace it with a PMD-mapped THP. Change the helpers introduced in the
>>>> previous patch to flush TLB entry corresponding to the hugezeropage,
>>>> and preserve PMD uffd-wp marker. In case of failure, fallback to
>>>> splitting the PMD.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain@arm.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 6 ++++
>>>> mm/huge_memory.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>>>> mm/memory.c | 5 +--
>>>> 3 files changed, 78 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>>>> index e25d9ebfdf89..fdd2cf473a3c 100644
>>>> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>>>> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>>>> @@ -9,6 +9,12 @@
>>>> #include <linux/kobject.h>
>>>> vm_fault_t do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page(struct vm_fault *vmf);
>>>> +vm_fault_t thp_fault_alloc(gfp_t gfp, int order, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> + unsigned long haddr, struct folio **foliop,
>>>> + unsigned long addr);
>>>> +void map_pmd_thp(struct folio *folio, struct vm_fault *vmf,
>>>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long haddr,
>>>> + pgtable_t pgtable);
>>> I don't think you are using either of these outside of huge_memory.c, so not
>>> sure you need to declare them here or make them non-static?
>> As pointed out by Kirill, you are right, I forgot to drop these from my previous
>> approach.
>>
>>>> int copy_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
>>>> pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd, unsigned long addr,
>>>> struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma, struct vm_area_struct *src_vma);
>>>> diff --git a/mm/huge_memory.c b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> index 58125fbcc532..150163ad77d3 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/huge_memory.c
>>>> @@ -943,9 +943,9 @@ unsigned long thp_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp,
>>>> unsigned long addr,
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(thp_get_unmapped_area);
>>>> -static vm_fault_t thp_fault_alloc(gfp_t gfp, int order, struct
>>>> vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> - unsigned long haddr, struct folio **foliop,
>>>> - unsigned long addr)
>>>> +vm_fault_t thp_fault_alloc(gfp_t gfp, int order, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>>> + unsigned long haddr, struct folio **foliop,
>>>> + unsigned long addr)
>>>> {
>>>> struct folio *folio = vma_alloc_folio(gfp, order, vma, haddr, true);
>>>> @@ -984,21 +984,29 @@ static void __thp_fault_success_stats(struct
>>>> vm_area_struct *vma, int order)
>>>> count_memcg_event_mm(vma->vm_mm, THP_FAULT_ALLOC);
>>>> }
>>>> -static void map_pmd_thp(struct folio *folio, struct vm_fault *vmf,
>>>> - struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long haddr,
>>>> - pgtable_t pgtable)
>>>> +void map_pmd_thp(struct folio *folio, struct vm_fault *vmf,
>>>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long haddr,
>>>> + pgtable_t pgtable)
>>>> {
>>>> - pmd_t entry;
>>>> + pmd_t entry, old_pmd;
>>>> + bool is_pmd_none = pmd_none(*vmf->pmd);
>>>> 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);
>>>> - pgtable_trans_huge_deposit(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd, pgtable);
>>>> + if (!is_pmd_none) {
>>>> + old_pmd = pmdp_huge_clear_flush(vma, haddr, vmf->pmd);
>>>> + if (pmd_uffd_wp(old_pmd))
>>>> + entry = pmd_mkuffd_wp(entry);
>>> I don't really get this; entry is writable, so I wouldn't expect to also be
>>> setting uffd-wp here? That combination is not allowed and is checked for in
>>> page_table_check_pte_flags().
>>>
>>> It looks like you expect to get here in the uffd-wp-async case, which used to
>>> cause the pmd to be split to ptes. I'm guessing (but don't know for sure) that
>>> would cause the uffd-wp bit to be set in each of the new ptes, then during
>>> fallback to handling the wp fault on the pte, uffd would handle it?
>> I guess you are correct; I missed the WARN_ON() in page_table_check_pmd_flags(),
>> but I did see, if I read the uffd code correctly, that mfill_atomic() will just
>> return in case of pmd_trans_huge(*dst_pmd) while doing a uffd_copy to the
>> destination
>> location. So preserving pmd_uffd_wp is useless in case a THP is mapped, but I
>> did not
>> know that in fact it is supposed to be an invalid combination. So, I will drop it,
>> unless someone has some other objection.
> So what's the correct way to handle uffd-wp-async in wp_huge_pmd()? Just split
> it? If so, you can revert your changes in memory.c.
I think so.
>
>>>> + }
>>>> + if (pgtable)
>>>> + pgtable_trans_huge_deposit(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd, pgtable);
>>> Should this call be moved outside of here? It doesn't really feel like it
>>> belongs. Could it be called before calling map_pmd_thp() for the site that has a
>>> pgtable?
>> Every other place I checked, they are doing this: make the entry -> deposit
>> pgtable ->
>> set_pmd_at(). I guess the general flow is to do the deposit based on the old
>> pmd, before
>> setting the new one. Which implies: I should at least move this check before I call
>> pmdp_huge_clear_flush(). And, since vmf->pmd and creating the new entry has no
>> relation,
>> I am inclined to do what you are saying.
> pgtable_trans_huge_deposit() is just adding the pgtable to a list so that if the
> THP needs to be split in future, then we have preallocated the pte pgtable so
> the operation can't fail.
Yes.
> And enqueing it is just under the protection of the
> PTL as far as I can tell. So I think the only ordering requirement is that you
> both set the pmd and deposit the pgtable under the lock (without dropping it in
> between). So you can deposit either before or after map_pmd_thp().
Yes I'll do that before.
> And
> pmdp_huge_clear_flush() is irrelavent, I think?
You mean, in this context? Everywhere, pgtable deposit uses the old pmd
value to be replaced as its input, that is, it is called before set_pmd_at().
So calling pgtable deposit after clear_flush() will violate this ordering.
I do not think this ordering is really required but I'd rather be safe :)
>
>>>> set_pmd_at(vma->vm_mm, haddr, vmf->pmd, entry);
>>>> update_mmu_cache_pmd(vma, vmf->address, vmf->pmd);
>>>> add_mm_counter(vma->vm_mm, MM_ANONPAGES, HPAGE_PMD_NR);
>>>> - mm_inc_nr_ptes(vma->vm_mm);
>>>> + if (is_pmd_none)
>>>> + mm_inc_nr_ptes(vma->vm_mm);
>>>> }
>>>> static vm_fault_t __do_huge_pmd_anonymous_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>> @@ -1576,6 +1584,50 @@ void huge_pmd_set_accessed(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>> spin_unlock(vmf->ptl);
>>>> }
>>>> +static vm_fault_t do_huge_zero_wp_pmd_locked(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>>>> + unsigned long haddr,
>>>> + struct folio *folio)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
>>>> + vm_fault_t ret = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = check_stable_address_space(vma->vm_mm);
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> + map_pmd_thp(folio, vmf, vma, haddr, NULL);
>>>> +out:
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> +static vm_fault_t do_huge_zero_wp_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, unsigned long
>>>> haddr)
>>>> +{
>>>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
>>>> + gfp_t gfp = vma_thp_gfp_mask(vma);
>>>> + struct mmu_notifier_range range;
>>>> + struct folio *folio = NULL;
>>>> + vm_fault_t ret = 0;
>>>> +
>>>> + ret = thp_fault_alloc(gfp, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER, vma, haddr, &folio,
>>>> + vmf->address);
>>> Just checking: the PTE table was already allocated during the read fault, right?
>>> So we don't have to allocate it here.
>> Correct, that happens in set_huge_zero_folio(). Thanks for checking.
>>
>>>> + if (ret)
>>>> + goto out;
>>>> +
>>>> + mmu_notifier_range_init(&range, MMU_NOTIFY_CLEAR, 0, vma->vm_mm, haddr,
>>>> + haddr + HPAGE_PMD_SIZE);
>>>> + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
>>>> + vmf->ptl = pmd_lock(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
>>>> + if (unlikely(!pmd_same(pmdp_get(vmf->pmd), vmf->orig_pmd)))
>>>> + goto unlock;
>>>> + ret = do_huge_zero_wp_pmd_locked(vmf, haddr, folio);
>>>> + if (!ret)
>>>> + __thp_fault_success_stats(vma, HPAGE_PMD_ORDER);
>>>> +unlock:
>>>> + spin_unlock(vmf->ptl);
>>>> + mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
>>> I'll confess I don't understand all the mmu notifier rules.
>> I confess the same :)
>>
>>> But the doc at
>>> Documentation/mm/mmu_notifier.rst implies that the notification must be done
>>> while holding the PTL. Although that's not how wp_page_copy(). Are you confident
>>> what you have done is correct?
>> Everywhere else, invalidate_range_end() is getting called after dropping the lock,
>> one reason is that it has a might_sleep(), and therefore we cannot call it while
>> holding a spinlock. I still don't know what exactly these calls mean...but I think
>> what I have done is correct.
> High level; they are notifying secondary MMUs (e.g. IOMMU) of a change so the
> tables of those secondary MMUs can be kept in sync. I don't understand all the
> ordering requirement details though.
>
> I think what you have is probably correct, would be good for someone that knows
> what they are talking about to confirm though :)
Exactly.
>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>>> +out:
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> vm_fault_t do_huge_pmd_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>> {
>>>> const bool unshare = vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE;
>>>> @@ -1588,8 +1640,15 @@ vm_fault_t do_huge_pmd_wp_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
>>>> vmf->ptl = pmd_lockptr(vma->vm_mm, vmf->pmd);
>>>> VM_BUG_ON_VMA(!vma->anon_vma, vma);
>>>> - if (is_huge_zero_pmd(orig_pmd))
>>>> + if (is_huge_zero_pmd(orig_pmd)) {
>>>> + vm_fault_t ret = do_huge_zero_wp_pmd(vmf, haddr);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (!(ret & VM_FAULT_FALLBACK))
>>>> + return ret;
>>>> +
>>>> + /* Fallback to splitting PMD if THP cannot be allocated */
>>>> goto fallback;
>>>> + }
>>>> spin_lock(vmf->ptl);
>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>>>> index 3c01d68065be..c081a25f5173 100644
>>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>>> @@ -5409,9 +5409,10 @@ static inline vm_fault_t wp_huge_pmd(struct vm_fault
>>>> *vmf)
>>>> if (vma_is_anonymous(vma)) {
>>>> if (likely(!unshare) &&
>>>> userfaultfd_huge_pmd_wp(vma, vmf->orig_pmd)) {
>>>> - if (userfaultfd_wp_async(vmf->vma))
>>>> + if (!userfaultfd_wp_async(vmf->vma))
>>>> + return handle_userfault(vmf, VM_UFFD_WP);
>>>> + if (!is_huge_zero_pmd(vmf->orig_pmd))
>>>> goto split;
>>>> - return handle_userfault(vmf, VM_UFFD_WP);
>>>> }
>>>> return do_huge_pmd_wp_page(vmf);
>>>> }
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-09-06 9:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-09-04 10:09 [PATCH v2 0/2] Do not shatter hugezeropage on wp-fault Dev Jain
2024-09-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: Abstract THP allocation Dev Jain
2024-09-05 8:20 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2024-09-05 8:45 ` Dev Jain
2024-09-05 11:08 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-09-06 5:42 ` Dev Jain
2024-09-06 8:28 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-09-06 8:45 ` Dev Jain
2024-09-06 9:00 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-09-04 10:09 ` [PATCH v2 2/2] mm: Allocate THP on hugezeropage wp-fault Dev Jain
2024-09-05 8:26 ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2024-09-05 8:52 ` Dev Jain
2024-09-05 9:41 ` Kefeng Wang
2024-09-05 9:53 ` Dev Jain
2024-09-05 13:14 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-09-06 7:05 ` Dev Jain
2024-09-06 8:43 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-09-06 9:00 ` Dev Jain [this message]
2024-09-06 9:31 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-09-04 11:36 ` [PATCH v2 0/2] Do not shatter hugezeropage on wp-fault Ryan Roberts
2024-09-04 15:41 ` Dev Jain
2024-09-04 16:01 ` Ryan Roberts
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=709c0648-c9c5-4197-83f2-64d36293b99e@arm.com \
--to=dev.jain@arm.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@kernel.org \
--cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=baohua@kernel.org \
--cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
--cc=cl@gentwo.org \
--cc=dave.hansen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=ioworker0@gmail.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jglisse@google.com \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=will@kernel.org \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=yang@os.amperecomputing.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox