Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mm: use aligned address in clear_gigantic_page()

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 28.10.24 14:33, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2024/10/28 21:14, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 28.10.24 13:52, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2024/10/28 18:00, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> On 26.10.24 07:43, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>>> When clearing gigantic page, it zeros page from the first page to the
>>>>> last page, if directly passing addr_hint which maybe not the address
>>>>> of the first page of folio, then some archs could flush the wrong cache
>>>>> if it does use the addr_hint as a hint. For non-gigantic page, it
>>>>> calculates the base address inside, even passed the wrong addr_hint, it
>>>>> only has performance impact as the process_huge_page() wants to process
>>>>> target page last to keep its cache lines hot), no functional impact.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let's pass the real accessed address to folio_zero_user() and use the
>>>>> aligned address in clear_gigantic_page() to fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fixes: 78fefd04c123 ("mm: memory: convert clear_huge_page() to
>>>>> folio_zero_user()")
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> v2:
>>>>> - update changelog to clarify the impact, per Andrew
>>>>>
>>>>>     fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c | 2 +-
>>>>>     mm/memory.c          | 1 +
>>>>>     2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>>>>> index a4441fb77f7c..a5ea006f403e 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>>>>> @@ -825,7 +825,7 @@ static long hugetlbfs_fallocate(struct file *file,
>>>>> int mode, loff_t offset,
>>>>>                 error = PTR_ERR(folio);
>>>>>                 goto out;
>>>>>             }
>>>>> -        folio_zero_user(folio, ALIGN_DOWN(addr, hpage_size));
>>>>> +        folio_zero_user(folio, addr);
>>>>>             __folio_mark_uptodate(folio);
>>>>>             error = hugetlb_add_to_page_cache(folio, mapping, index);
>>>>>             if (unlikely(error)) {
>>>>> diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
>>>>> index 75c2dfd04f72..ef47b7ea5ddd 100644
>>>>> --- a/mm/memory.c
>>>>> +++ b/mm/memory.c
>>>>> @@ -6821,6 +6821,7 @@ static void clear_gigantic_page(struct folio
>>>>> *folio, unsigned long addr,
>>>>>         int i;
>>>>>         might_sleep();
>>>>> +    addr = ALIGN_DOWN(addr, folio_size(folio));
>>>>
>>>> Right, that's what's effectively done in a very bad way in
>>>> process_huge_page()
>>>>
>>>> unsigned long addr = addr_hint &
>>>>                 ~(((unsigned long)nr_pages << PAGE_SHIFT) - 1);
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That should all be cleaned up ... process_huge_page() likely shouldn't
>>>
>>> Yes, let's fix the bug firstly,
>>>
>>>> be even consuming "nr_pages".
>>>
>>> No sure about this part, it uses nr_pages as the end and calculate the
>>> 'base'.
>>
>> It should be using folio_nr_pages().
> 
> But process_huge_page() without an explicit folio argument, I'd like to
> move the aligned address calculate into the folio_zero_user and
> copy_user_large_folio(will rename it to folio_copy_user()) in the
> following cleanup patches, or do it in the fix patches?

First, why does folio_zero_user() call process_huge_page() for *a small 
folio*? Because we like or code to be extra complicated to understand? 
Or am I missing something important?

Second, we should be passing the folio to "process_huge_page" and likely 
rename it to "folio_process_pages()" or sth like that. The function even 
documents "of the specified huge page", but there is none specified. The 
copy case might require a rework.

I think this code needs a serious cleanup ...

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb