From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
Kirill Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] mm: Fetch the dirty bit before we reset the pte
Date: Thu, 8 Oct 2020 10:02:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=whwY0WT046fqM-zdHu9vamUjgkvmd36gCd4qSaeYy98nA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201008092627.399131-1-aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 746 bytes --]
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 2:27 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
<aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> In copy_present_page, after we mark the pte non-writable, we should
> check for previous dirty bit updates and make sure we don't lose the dirty
> bit on reset.
No, we'll just remove that entirely.
Do you have a test-case that shows a problem? I have a patch that I
was going to delay until 5.10 because I didn't think it mattered in
practice..
The second part of this patch would be to add a sequence count
protection to fast-GUP pinning, so that GUP and fork() couldn't race,
but I haven't written that part.
Here's the first patch anyway. If you actually have a test-case where
this matters, I guess I need to apply it now..
Linus
[-- Attachment #2: fork-cleanup --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2530 bytes --]
mm/memory.c | 46 ++++++++++------------------------------------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 36 deletions(-)
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index fcfc4ca36eba..4a7e89d35ecf 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -806,8 +806,6 @@ copy_present_page(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
return 1;
/*
- * The trick starts.
- *
* What we want to do is to check whether this page may
* have been pinned by the parent process. If so,
* instead of wrprotect the pte on both sides, we copy
@@ -815,46 +813,22 @@ copy_present_page(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
* the pinned page won't be randomly replaced in the
* future.
*
- * To achieve this, we do the following:
- *
- * 1. Write-protect the pte if it's writable. This is
- * to protect concurrent write fast-gup with
- * FOLL_PIN, so that we'll fail the fast-gup with
- * the write bit removed.
- *
- * 2. Check page_maybe_dma_pinned() to see whether this
- * page may have been pinned.
+ * The page pinning checks are just "has this mm ever
+ * seen pinning", along with the (inexact) check of
+ * the page count. That might give false positives for
+ * for pinning, but it will work correctly.
*
- * The order of these steps is important to serialize
- * against the fast-gup code (gup_pte_range()) on the
- * pte check and try_grab_compound_head(), so that
- * we'll make sure either we'll capture that fast-gup
- * so we'll copy the pinned page here, or we'll fail
- * that fast-gup.
- *
- * NOTE! Even if we don't end up copying the page,
- * we won't undo this wrprotect(), because the normal
- * reference copy will need it anyway.
- */
- if (pte_write(pte))
- ptep_set_wrprotect(src_mm, addr, src_pte);
-
- /*
- * These are the "normally we can just copy by reference"
- * checks.
+ * Another heuristic is to just check the mapcount for
+ * this page. If it is mapped elsewhere, it already is
+ * not an exclusively pinned page, and doing another
+ * "copy by reference" isn't going to matter.
*/
if (likely(!atomic_read(&src_mm->has_pinned)))
return 1;
if (likely(!page_maybe_dma_pinned(page)))
return 1;
-
- /*
- * Uhhuh. It looks like the page might be a pinned page,
- * and we actually need to copy it. Now we can set the
- * source pte back to being writable.
- */
- if (pte_write(pte))
- set_pte_at(src_mm, addr, src_pte, pte);
+ if (__page_mapcount(page) > 1)
+ return 1;
new_page = *prealloc;
if (!new_page)
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-10-08 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-10-08 9:26 Aneesh Kumar K.V
2020-10-08 17:02 ` Linus Torvalds [this message]
2020-10-08 17:06 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-10-08 17:30 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-10-08 17:32 ` Aneesh Kumar K.V
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='CAHk-=whwY0WT046fqM-zdHu9vamUjgkvmd36gCd4qSaeYy98nA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=aneesh.kumar@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=kirill@shutemov.name \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=peterx@redhat.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