On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 6:21 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 04:37:11PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 2:41 PM Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > Peter,
> > >
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2021 at 12:04:53PM -0700, Peter Collingbourne wrote:
> > >
> > > [...]
> > >
> > > > +static bool may_avoid_write_fault(pte_t pte, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > + unsigned long cp_flags)
> > > > +{
> > > > + if (!(cp_flags & MM_CP_DIRTY_ACCT)) {
> > > > + if (!(vma_is_anonymous(vma) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE)))
> > > > + return false;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (page_count(pte_page(pte)) != 1)
> > > > + return false;
> > > > + }
> > >
> > > Can we make MM_CP_DIRTY_ACCT still in charge? IIUC that won't affect your use
> > > case, something like:
> > >
> > > /* Never apply trick if MM_CP_DIRTY_ACCT not set */
> > > if (!(cp_flags & MM_CP_DIRTY_ACCT))
> > > return false;
> > >
> > > The thing is that's really what MM_CP_DIRTY_ACCT is about, imho (as its name
> > > shows). Say, we should start to count on the dirty bit for applying the write
> > > bit only if that flag set. With above, I think we can drop the pte_uffd_wp()
> > > check below because uffd_wp never applies MM_CP_DIRTY_ACCT when do
> > > change_protection().
> >
> > I don't think that would work. The anonymous pages that we're
> > interesting in optimizing are private writable pages, for which
> > vma_wants_writenotify(vma, vma->vm_page_prot) would return false (and
> > thus MM_CP_DIRTY_ACCT would not be set, and thus your code would
> > disable the optimization), because of this code at the top of
> > vma_wants_writenotify:
> >
> > /* If it was private or non-writable, the write bit is already clear */
> > if ((vm_flags & (VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)) != ((VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)))
> > return 0;
> >
> > IIUC, dirty accountable is about whether we can always apply the
> > optimization no matter what the ref count is, so it isn't suitable for
> > situations where we need to check the ref count.
>
> Ah I see.. Though it still looks weird e.g. the first check could have been
> done before calling change_protection()?
>
> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> index 96f4df023439..9270140afbbd 100644
> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> @@ -548,7 +548,8 @@ mprotect_fixup(struct vm_area_struct *vma, struct vm_area_struct **pprev,
> * held in write mode.
> */
> vma->vm_flags = newflags;
> - dirty_accountable = vma_wants_writenotify(vma, vma->vm_page_prot);
> + dirty_accountable = vma_wants_writenotify(vma, vma->vm_page_prot) ||
> + (vma_is_anonymous(vma) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_WRITE));
> vma_set_page_prot(vma);
>
> change_protection(vma, start, end, vma->vm_page_prot,
>
> Would something like this make the check even faster?
That still doesn't seem like it would work either. I think we need
three kinds of behavior (glossing over a bunch of details):
- always make RW for certain shared pages (this is the original dirty
accountable behavior)
- don't make RW except for page_count==1 for certain private pages
- don't optimize at all in other cases
A single bit isn't enough to cover all of these possibilities.
> Meanwhile when I'm looking at the rest I found I cannot understand the other
> check in this patch regarding soft dirty:
>
> + if (!pte_soft_dirty(pte) && (vma->vm_flags & VM_SOFTDIRTY))
> + return false;
>
> I'm wondering why it's not:
>
> + if (!pte_soft_dirty(pte) && !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SOFTDIRTY))
> + return false;
>
> Then I look back and it's indeed what it does before, starting from commit
> 64e455079e1b ("mm: softdirty: enable write notifications on VMAs after
> VM_SOFTDIRTY cleared", 2014-10-14):
>
> if (dirty_accountable && pte_dirty(ptent) &&
> (pte_soft_dirty(ptent) ||
> !(vma->vm_flags & VM_SOFTDIRTY)))
>
> However I don't get it... Shouldn't this be "if soft dirty set, or soft dirty
> tracking not enabled, then we can grant the write bit"? The thing is afaiu
> VM_SOFTDIRTY works in the reversed way that soft dirty enabled only if it's
> cleared. Hmm... Am I the only one thinks it wrong?
No strong opinions here, I'm just preserving the original logic.
Peter
