On 07/29/2019 05:59 PM, Steven Price wrote:
> On 28/07/2019 15:20, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 07/22/2019 09:12 PM, Steven Price wrote:
>>> Since 48684a65b4e3: "mm: pagewalk: fix misbehavior of walk_page_range
>>> for vma(VM_PFNMAP)", page_table_walk() will report any kernel area as
>>> a hole, because it lacks a vma.
>>>
>>> This means each arch has re-implemented page table walking when needed,
>>> for example in the per-arch ptdump walker.
>>>
>>> Remove the requirement to have a vma except when trying to split huge
>>> pages.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Steven Price <steven.price@xxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> mm/pagewalk.c | 25 +++++++++++++++++--------
>>> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/pagewalk.c b/mm/pagewalk.c
>>> index 98373a9f88b8..1cbef99e9258 100644
>>> --- a/mm/pagewalk.c
>>> +++ b/mm/pagewalk.c
>>> @@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ static int walk_pmd_range(pud_t *pud, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>>> do {
>>> again:
>>> next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
>>> - if (pmd_none(*pmd) || !walk->vma) {
>>> + if (pmd_none(*pmd)) {
>>> if (walk->pte_hole)
>>> err = walk->pte_hole(addr, next, walk);
>>> if (err)
>>> @@ -59,9 +59,14 @@ static int walk_pmd_range(pud_t *pud, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>>> if (!walk->pte_entry)
>>> continue;
>>>
>>> - split_huge_pmd(walk->vma, pmd, addr);
>>> - if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
>>> - goto again;
>>> + if (walk->vma) {
>>> + split_huge_pmd(walk->vma, pmd, addr);
>>
>> Check for a PMD THP entry before attempting to split it ?
>
> split_huge_pmd does the check for us:
>> #define split_huge_pmd(__vma, __pmd, __address) \
>> do { \
>> pmd_t *____pmd = (__pmd); \
>> if (is_swap_pmd(*____pmd) || pmd_trans_huge(*____pmd) \
>> || pmd_devmap(*____pmd)) \
>> __split_huge_pmd(__vma, __pmd, __address, \
>> false, NULL); \
>> } while (0)
>
> And this isn't a change from the previous code - only that the entry is
> no longer split when walk->vma==NULL.
Does it make sense to name walk->vma check to differentiate between user
and kernel page tables. IMHO that will help make things clear and explicit
during page table walk.
>
>>> + if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
>>> + goto again;
>>> + } else if (pmd_leaf(*pmd)) {
>>> + continue;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> err = walk_pte_range(pmd, addr, next, walk);
>>> if (err)
>>> break;
>>> @@ -81,7 +86,7 @@ static int walk_pud_range(p4d_t *p4d, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>>> do {
>>> again:
>>> next = pud_addr_end(addr, end);
>>> - if (pud_none(*pud) || !walk->vma) {
>>> + if (pud_none(*pud)) {
>>> if (walk->pte_hole)
>>> err = walk->pte_hole(addr, next, walk);
>>> if (err)
>>> @@ -95,9 +100,13 @@ static int walk_pud_range(p4d_t *p4d, unsigned long addr, unsigned long end,
>>> break;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - split_huge_pud(walk->vma, pud, addr);
>>> - if (pud_none(*pud))
>>> - goto again;
>>> + if (walk->vma) {
>>> + split_huge_pud(walk->vma, pud, addr);
>>
>> Check for a PUD THP entry before attempting to split it ?
>
> Same as above.
>
>>> + if (pud_none(*pud))
>>> + goto again;
>>> + } else if (pud_leaf(*pud)) {
>>> + continue;
>>> + }
>>
>> This is bit cryptic. walk->vma check should be inside a helper is_user_page_table()
>> or similar to make things clear. p4d_leaf() check missing in walk_p4d_range() for
>> kernel page table walk ? Wondering if p?d_leaf() test should be moved earlier while
>> calling p?d_entry() for kernel page table walk.
>
> I wasn't sure if it was worth putting p4d_leaf() and pgd_leaf() checks
> in (yet). No architecture that I know of uses such large pages.
Just to be complete it does make sense to add the remaining possible leaf
entry checks but will leave it upto you.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by moving the p?d_leaf() test earlier? Can
> you explain with an example?
In case its a kernel p?d_leaf() entry, then there is nothing to be done
after calling respective walk->p?d_entry() functions. Hence this check
should not complement user page table check (walk->vma) later in the
function but instead be checked right after walk->p?d_entry(). But its
not a big deal I guess.
