On Thursday, 16 December 2021 4:50:47 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 01:38:33PM +0800, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 04:01:47PM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > On Monday, 15 November 2021 6:55:02 PM AEDT Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > We used to check against none pte and in those cases orig_pte should always be
> > > > none pte anyway.
> > >
> > > Is that always true? From what I can see in handle_pte_fault() orig_pte only
> > > gets initialised in the !pmd_none() case so might not be pte_none.
> >
> > I believe it's true, otherwise I must have overlooked.
> >
> > IMHO it's not "when we set orig_pte" that matters - note that finish_fault()
> > (that this patch modifies) is only called for file-backed memories, and it's
> > only called in do_fault() where the pte is not mapped at all.
> >
> > DAX seems to call it too, but still DAX comes from do_fault() too, afaict.
> >
> > The pte will not be mapped in two cases in handle_pte_fault():
> >
> > - When pmd_none
> >
> > - When !pmd_none, however if we find that pte_none==true, that's:
> >
> > if (pte_none(vmf->orig_pte)) {
> > pte_unmap(vmf->pte);
> > vmf->pte = NULL;
> > }
> >
> > So when we're already in do_fault(), afaict, orig_pte must be pte_none().
> > Another side note is that, IIUC pte_none() is a looser check than the
> > pte_val()==0 and it should be arch dependent.
>
> So one more thing I forgot to mention... Of course above is based on the fact
> that orig_pte will be initialized to zero when creating vmf structure, and
> that's done in __handle_mm_fault():
>
> struct vm_fault vmf = {
> .vma = vma,
> .address = address & PAGE_MASK,
> .flags = flags,
> .pgoff = linear_page_index(vma, address),
> .gfp_mask = __get_fault_gfp_mask(vma),
> };
>
> I'm not sure whether I should explicitly set it to pte_val(0), in most C
> programs we'll already assume it's a proper reset of orig_pte value in c99
> initialization format, but if anyone thinks we should do that explicitly plus
> some comments I can do that too.
Ok, that was really my question. Is:
if (likely(pte_none(*vmf->pte)))
equivalent to:
if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, __pte(0))))
for every architecture? Looking at Xtensa for example suggests it might not be:
arch/xtensa/include/asm/pgtable.h:
# define pte_none(pte) (pte_val(pte) == (_PAGE_CA_INVALID | _PAGE_USER))
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > >
> > > > This change prepares us to be able to call do_fault() on !none ptes. For
> > > > example, we should allow that to happen for pte marker so that we can restore
> > > > information out of the pte markers.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > mm/memory.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
> > > > index 04662b010005..d5966d9e24c3 100644
> > > > --- a/mm/memory.c
> > > > +++ b/mm/memory.c
> > > > @@ -4052,7 +4052,7 @@ vm_fault_t finish_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > > > vmf->address, &vmf->ptl);
> > > > ret = 0;
> > > > /* Re-check under ptl */
> > > > - if (likely(pte_none(*vmf->pte)))
> > > > + if (likely(pte_same(*vmf->pte, vmf->orig_pte)))
> > > > do_set_pte(vmf, page, vmf->address);
> > > > else
> > > > ret = VM_FAULT_NOPAGE;
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
