Hello David, > On 18 Aug 2021, at 20:14, David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12.08.21 17:58, Tiberiu A Georgescu wrote: >> Mentioning the current missing functionality of the pagemap, in case >> someone stumbles upon unexpected behaviour. >> Signed-off-by: Tiberiu A Georgescu <tiberiu.georgescu@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Ivan Teterevkov <ivan.teterevkov@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Florian Schmidt <florian.schmidt@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Carl Waldspurger <carl.waldspurger@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> Reviewed-by: Jonathan Davies <jonathan.davies@xxxxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst | 6 ++++++ >> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst >> index fb578fbbb76c..627f3832b3a2 100644 >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/mm/pagemap.rst >> @@ -207,3 +207,9 @@ Before Linux 3.11 pagemap bits 55-60 were used for "page-shift" (which is >> always 12 at most architectures). Since Linux 3.11 their meaning changes >> after first clear of soft-dirty bits. Since Linux 4.2 they are used for >> flags unconditionally. >> + >> +Note that the page table entries for swappable and non-syncable pages are >> +cleared when those pages are zapped or swapped out. This makes information >> +about the page disappear from the pagemap. The location of the swapped >> +page can still be retrieved from the page cache, but flags like SOFT_DIRTY >> +and UFFD_WP are lost irretrievably. > > UFFD_WP is currently only supported for private anonymous memory, where it should just work (a swap entry with a uffd-wp marker). So can we even end up with UFFD_WP bits on shmem and such? (Peter is up-streaming that right now, but there, I think he's intending to handle it properly without these bits getting lost using pte_markers and such). If that is the case, I guess we should not end up with UFFD_WP bits on shmem ptes yet. Sorry for the confusion. Great to hear Peter is upstreaming his patch soon. Is it this series[1] you mention? [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210715201422.211004-1-peterx@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > So regarding upstream Linux, your note regarding UFFD_WP should not be applicable, right? > Right. > > On a related note: if we start thinking about the pagemap expressing which pages are currently mapped into the page tables ("state of the process page tables") mostly all starts making sense. We document this as "to examine the page tables" already. > > We only get swapped information if there is a swap PTE -- which only makes sense for anonymous pages, because there, the page table holds the state ("single source of truth"). For shmem, we don't have it, because the page cache is the single source of truth. > > We only get presence information if there is a page mapped into the page tables -- which, for anonymous pages, specifies if there is anything present at all. For shmem we only have it if it's currently mapped into the page table. > > Losing softdirt is a bad side effect of, what you describe, just setting a PTE to none and not syncing back that state back to some central place where it could be observed even without the PTE at hand. > Yeah, that seems to be the case because shared memory behaves internally as file-backed memory, but logically needs to be swapped to a swap device, not to the disk. This turns shmem into an odd hybrid, which does not truly adhere to the rules the other categories comply. > > Maybe we should document more clearly, especially what to expect for anonymous pages and what to expect for shared memory etc from the pagemap. Once we figured out which other interfaces we have to deal with shared memory (minore(), lseek() as we learned), we might want to document that as well, to safe people some time when exploring this area. I agree, as I found out first hand how eluding this information can be. Thank you for your comments and discoveries mentioned on Peter's RFC thread[4], particularly the usage of mincore(), lseek() and proc/pid/map_files in CRIU. I learned a lot from them. We should definitely add them as alternatives for parts of the missing information. Currently, the missing information for shmem is this: 1. Difference between is_swap(pte) and is_none(pte). * is_swap(pte) is always false; * is_none(pte) is true when is_swap() should have been; * is_present(pte) is fine. 2. swp_entry(pte) Particularly, swp_type() and swp_offset(). 3. SOFT_DIRTY_BIT This is not always missing for shmem. Once 4 is written to clear_refs, if the page is dirtied, the bit is fine as long as it is still in memory. If the page is swapped out, the bit is lost. Then, if the page is brought back into memory, the bit is still lost. For 1, you mentioned how lseek() and madvise() can be used to get this information [2], and I proposed a different method with a little help from the current pagemap[3]. They have slightly different output and applications, so the difference should be taken into consideration. For 2, if anyone knows of any way of retrieve the missing information cleanly, please let us know. As for 3, AFAIK, we will need to leverage Peter's special PTE marker mechanism and implement it in another patch. [2]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/5766d353-6ff8-fdfa-f8f9-764e8de9b5aa@xxxxxxxxxx/ [3]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/B130B700-B3DB-4D07-A632-73030BCBC715@xxxxxxxxxxx/ ============================ For completeness, I would like to mention Peter's RFC[4] and my own patch[5], which deal with adding missing functionality to the pagemap when pages are shmem/tmpfs. Peter's patch[4] adds the missing information at 1 to the pagemap, with very little performance overhead. AFAIK, it is still WIP. My patch[5] fixes both 1 and 2, at the expense of a significant loss in performance when dealing with swapped out shared pages. This performance loss can be reduced with batching, for use cases when high performance matters. Also, this patch on top of Peter's RFC yields better performance[6]. Still 2x as slow on average compared to pre-patch. Peter's patch has a config flag, and I intend to add one to mine in the next version. So I wanted to propose, if alternatives are not implemented yet (mincore, lseek, map_files or otherwise are insufficient), we upstream our patches (once they are ready), so that users can toggle them on or off, depending on whether they need the extra functionality or not. And, of course, document their usage. If neither sounds like a particularly useful/convenient option, we might need to look into designs of retrieving the missing information via another mechanism (sys/fs, ioctl, netlink etc). That is, unless we find that we can/should place this info in the pagemap still, for the sake of correctness and completeness. For that though, we should convene on what do we expect the pagemap to do in the end. Is shmem/tmpfs out of bounds for it or not? [4]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210807032521.7591-1-peterx@xxxxxxxxxx/ [5]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20210730160826.63785-1-tiberiu.georgescu@xxxxxxxxxxx/ [6]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/C0DB3FED-F779-4838-9697-D05BE96C3514@xxxxxxxxxxx/ -- Kind regards, Tibi Georgescu
