Hi, On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:23:51PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > > > On 1/30/24 17:04, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2024 at 03:25:20PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: > >> > >> On 1/25/24 22:12, Alexandru Elisei wrote: > >>> arm64 uses VM_HIGH_ARCH_0 and VM_HIGH_ARCH_1 for enabling MTE for a VMA. > >>> When VM_HIGH_ARCH_0, which arm64 renames to VM_MTE, is set for a VMA, and > >>> the gfp flag __GFP_ZERO is present, the __GFP_ZEROTAGS gfp flag also gets > >>> set in vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio(). > >>> > >>> Expand this to be more generic by adding an arch hook that modifes the gfp > >>> flags for an allocation when the VMA is known. > >>> > >>> Note that __GFP_ZEROTAGS is ignored by the page allocator unless __GFP_ZERO > >>> is also set; from that point of view, the current behaviour is unchanged, > >>> even though the arm64 flag is set in more places. When arm64 will have > >>> support to reuse the tag storage for data allocation, the uses of the > >>> __GFP_ZEROTAGS flag will be expanded to instruct the page allocator to try > >>> to reserve the corresponding tag storage for the pages being allocated. > >> Right but how will pushing __GFP_ZEROTAGS addition into gfp_t flags further > >> down via a new arch call back i.e arch_calc_vma_gfp() while still maintaining > >> (vma->vm_flags & VM_MTE) conditionality improve the current scenario. Because > > I'm afraid I don't follow you. > > I was just asking whether the overall scope of __GFP_ZEROTAGS flag is being > increased to cover more core MM paths through this patch. I think you have > already answered that below. > > > > >> the page allocator could have still analyzed alloc flags for __GFP_ZEROTAGS > >> for any additional stuff. > >> > >> OR this just adds some new core MM paths to get __GFP_ZEROTAGS which was not > >> the case earlier via this call back. > > Before this patch: vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio() sets __GFP_ZEROTAGS. > > After this patch: vma_alloc_folio() sets __GFP_ZEROTAGS. > > Understood. > > > > > This patch is about adding __GFP_ZEROTAGS for more callers. > > Right, I guess that is the real motivation for this patch. But just wondering > does this cover all possible anon fault paths for converting given vma_flag's > VM_MTE flag into page alloc flag __GFP_ZEROTAGS ? Aren't there any other file > besides (mm/shmem.c) which needs to be changed to include arch_calc_vma_gfp() ? My thoughts exactly. I went through most of the fault handling code, and from the code I read, all the allocation were executed with vma_alloc_folio() or by shmem. That's not to say there's no scope for improvment, there definitely is, but since having __GFP_ZEROTAGS isn't necessary for correctness (but it's very useful for performance, since it can avoid a page fault and a page migration) and this series is an RFC I settled on changing only the above, since KVM support for dynamic tag storage also benefits from this change. The series is very big already, I wanted to settle on an approach that is acceptable for upstreaming before thinking too much about performance. Thanks, Alex
