Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] mm/mmap: separate writenotify and dirty tracking logic

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02.05.23 18:34, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
vma_wants_writenotify() is specifically intended for setting PTE page table
flags, accounting for existing PTE flag state and whether that might
already be read-only while mixing this check with a check whether the
filesystem performs dirty tracking.

Separate out the notions of dirty tracking and a PTE write notify checking
in order that we can invoke the dirty tracking check from elsewhere.

Note that this change introduces a very small duplicate check of the
separated out vm_ops_needs_writenotify(). This is necessary to avoid making
vma_needs_dirty_tracking() needlessly complicated (e.g. passing a
check_writenotify flag or having it assume this check was already
performed). This is such a small check that it doesn't seem too egregious
to do this.

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@xxxxxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  include/linux/mm.h |  1 +
  mm/mmap.c          | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
  2 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)

diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
index 27ce77080c79..7b1d4e7393ef 100644
--- a/include/linux/mm.h
+++ b/include/linux/mm.h
@@ -2422,6 +2422,7 @@ extern unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
  #define  MM_CP_UFFD_WP_ALL                 (MM_CP_UFFD_WP | \
  					    MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE)
+bool vma_needs_dirty_tracking(struct vm_area_struct *vma);
  int vma_wants_writenotify(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgprot_t vm_page_prot);
  static inline bool vma_wants_manual_pte_write_upgrade(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
  {
diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
index 5522130ae606..295c5f2e9bd9 100644
--- a/mm/mmap.c
+++ b/mm/mmap.c
@@ -1475,6 +1475,31 @@ SYSCALL_DEFINE1(old_mmap, struct mmap_arg_struct __user *, arg)
  }
  #endif /* __ARCH_WANT_SYS_OLD_MMAP */
+/* Do VMA operations imply write notify is required? */
+static bool vm_ops_needs_writenotify(const struct vm_operations_struct *vm_ops)
+{
+	return vm_ops && (vm_ops->page_mkwrite || vm_ops->pfn_mkwrite);
+}
+
+/*
+ * Does this VMA require the underlying folios to have their dirty state
+ * tracked?
+ */
+bool vma_needs_dirty_tracking(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
+{

Sorry for not noticing this earlier, but ...

what about MAP_PRIVATE mappings? When we write, we populate an anon page, which will work as expected ... because we don't have to notify the fs?

I think you really also want the "If it was private or non-writable, the write bit is already clear */" part as well and remove "false" in that case.

Or was there a good reason to disallow private mappings as well?

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux