From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
To: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
Cc: linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-doc@vger.kernel.org,
upstream+pagemap@sigma-star.at, adobriyan@gmail.com,
wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com, ryan.roberts@arm.com,
hughd@google.com, peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com,
avagin@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz, akpm@linux-foundation.org,
usama.anjum@collabora.com, corbet@lwn.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] pagemap.rst: Document write bit
Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 22:14:04 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ze4wrHL6DEQJl_Oo@devil> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240306232339.29659-2-richard@nod.at>
On Thu, Mar 07, 2024 at 12:23:39AM +0100, Richard Weinberger wrote:
> Bit 58 denotes that a PTE is writable.
> The main use case is detecting CoW mappings.
>
> Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>
> ---
> Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst
> index f5f065c67615..81ffe3601b96 100644
> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst
> @@ -21,7 +21,8 @@ There are four components to pagemap:
> * Bit 56 page exclusively mapped (since 4.2)
> * Bit 57 pte is uffd-wp write-protected (since 5.13) (see
> Documentation/admin-guide/mm/userfaultfd.rst)
> - * Bits 58-60 zero
> + * Bit 58 pte is writable (since 6.10)
I really think we need to be careful about talking about 'writable' again
because people are easily confused about the difference between a writable
_mapping_ and a writable _page table entry_.
Of course you mention PTE here, but I think it might be better to say
something like:
* Bit 58 raw pte r/w flag (since 6.10)
> + * Bits 59-60 zero
> * Bit 61 page is file-page or shared-anon (since 3.5)
> * Bit 62 page swapped
> * Bit 63 page present
> @@ -37,6 +38,11 @@ There are four components to pagemap:
> precisely which pages are mapped (or in swap) and comparing mapped
> pages between processes.
>
> + Bit 58 is useful to detect CoW mappings; however, it does not indicate
> + whether the page mapping is writable or not. If an anonymous mapping is
> + writable but the write bit is not set, it means that the next write access
> + will cause a page fault, and copy-on-write will happen.
> +
David has addressed the copy vs. anon exclusive remap issue, but I also
feel this needs some balking out.
I would simply rephrase this in terms of whether a write fault occurs or
not e.g.:
Bit 58 indicates whether the PTE has the write flag set. If this flag is
unset, then write accesses for this mapping will cause a fault for this
page. If the mapping is private (whether anonymous or file-backed), this
can result in a Copy-on-Write (though if anonymous-excusive the flag
will simply be set). If file-backed, this being cleared may simply
indicate that this file page is clean.
> Efficient users of this interface will use ``/proc/pid/maps`` to
> determine which areas of memory are actually mapped and llseek to
> skip over unmapped regions.
> --
> 2.35.3
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-03-10 22:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-03-06 23:23 [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] proc: pagemap: Expose whether a PTE is writable Richard Weinberger
2024-03-06 23:23 ` [PATCH 2/2] [RFC] pagemap.rst: Document write bit Richard Weinberger
2024-03-07 10:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-03-07 11:10 ` Richard Weinberger
2024-03-07 11:15 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-03-10 22:14 ` Lorenzo Stoakes [this message]
2024-03-07 10:44 ` [PATCH 1/2] [RFC] proc: pagemap: Expose whether a PTE is writable Muhammad Usama Anjum
2024-03-07 10:52 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-03-07 11:10 ` Richard Weinberger
2024-03-07 11:20 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-03-07 11:51 ` Richard Weinberger
2024-03-07 11:59 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-03-07 12:09 ` David Hildenbrand
2024-03-07 14:42 ` Richard Weinberger
2024-03-10 21:55 ` Lorenzo Stoakes
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=Ze4wrHL6DEQJl_Oo@devil \
--to=lstoakes@gmail.com \
--cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=avagin@google.com \
--cc=corbet@lwn.net \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=hughd@google.com \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=peterx@redhat.com \
--cc=richard@nod.at \
--cc=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
--cc=upstream+pagemap@sigma-star.at \
--cc=usama.anjum@collabora.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=wangkefeng.wang@huawei.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