From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-f199.google.com (mail-pl1-f199.google.com [209.85.214.199]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C19D6B577C for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 10:49:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: by mail-pl1-f199.google.com with SMTP id b93-v6so6171579plb.10 for ; Fri, 31 Aug 2018 07:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mga01.intel.com (mga01.intel.com. [192.55.52.88]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g3-v6si9696711pll.395.2018.08.31.07.49.53 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 31 Aug 2018 07:49:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v3 12/24] x86/mm: Modify ptep_set_wrprotect and pmdp_set_wrprotect for _PAGE_DIRTY_SW References: <1535649960.26689.15.camel@intel.com> <33d45a12-513c-eba2-a2de-3d6b630e928e@linux.intel.com> <1535651666.27823.6.camel@intel.com> <1535660494.28258.36.camel@intel.com> <1535662366.28781.6.camel@intel.com> <20180831095300.GF24124@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net> <1535726032.32537.0.camel@intel.com> From: Dave Hansen Message-ID: Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2018 07:47:29 -0700 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1535726032.32537.0.camel@intel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-ID: To: Yu-cheng Yu , Peter Zijlstra , Jann Horn Cc: the arch/x86 maintainers , "H . Peter Anvin" , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , kernel list , linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, Linux-MM , linux-arch , Linux API , Arnd Bergmann , Andy Lutomirski , Balbir Singh , Cyrill Gorcunov , Florian Weimer , hjl.tools@gmail.com, Jonathan Corbet , keescook@chromiun.org, Mike Kravetz , Nadav Amit , Oleg Nesterov , Pavel Machek , ravi.v.shankar@intel.com, vedvyas.shanbhogue@intel.com On 08/31/2018 07:33 AM, Yu-cheng Yu wrote: > Please use the form: > > pte_t new_pte, pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep); > do { > new_pte = /* ... */; > } while (!try_cmpxchg(ptep, &pte, new_pte); It's probably also worth doing some testing to see if you can detect the cost of the cmpxchg. It's definitely more than the old code. A loop that does mprotect(PROT_READ) followed by mprotect(PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE) should do it.