On Jul 20, 2022, at 2:42 AM, David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> ⚠ External Email
>
> On 18.07.22 14:01, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> When userfaultfd makes a PTE writable, it can now change the PTE
>> directly, in some cases, without going triggering a page-fault first.
>> Yet, doing so might leave the PTE that was write-unprotected as old and
>> clean. At least on x86, this would cause a >500 cycles overhead when the
>> PTE is first accessed.
>>
>> Use MM_CP_WILL_NEED to set the PTE as young and dirty when userfaultfd
>> gets a hint that the page is likely to be used. Avoid changing the PTE
>> to young and dirty in other cases to avoid excessive writeback and
>> messing with the page reclamation logic.
>>
>> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> include/linux/mm.h | 2 ++
>> mm/mprotect.c | 9 ++++++++-
>> mm/userfaultfd.c | 8 ++++++--
>> 3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
>> index 9cc02a7e503b..4afd75ce5875 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
>> @@ -1988,6 +1988,8 @@ extern unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> /* Whether this change is for write protecting */
>> #define MM_CP_UFFD_WP (1UL << 2) /* do wp */
>> #define MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE (1UL << 3) /* Resolve wp */
>> +/* Whether to try to mark entries as dirty as they are to be written */
>> +#define MM_CP_WILL_NEED (1UL << 4)
>> #define MM_CP_UFFD_WP_ALL (MM_CP_UFFD_WP | \
>> MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE)
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
>> index 996a97e213ad..34c2dfb68c42 100644
>> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
>> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>> bool prot_numa = cp_flags & MM_CP_PROT_NUMA;
>> bool uffd_wp = cp_flags & MM_CP_UFFD_WP;
>> bool uffd_wp_resolve = cp_flags & MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE;
>> + bool will_need = cp_flags & MM_CP_WILL_NEED;
>>
>> tlb_change_page_size(tlb, PAGE_SIZE);
>>
>> @@ -172,6 +173,9 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>> ptent = pte_clear_uffd_wp(ptent);
>> }
>>
>> + if (will_need)
>> + ptent = pte_mkyoung(ptent);
>> +
>> /*
>> * In some writable, shared mappings, we might want
>> * to catch actual write access -- see
>> @@ -187,8 +191,11 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>> */
>> if ((cp_flags & MM_CP_TRY_CHANGE_WRITABLE) &&
>> !pte_write(ptent) &&
>
>
> Why would we want to check if we can set something writable if it
> already *is* writable? That doesn't make sense to me.
We check !pte_write(). What am I missing in your question?
Having said that, I do notice now that pte_mkdirty() should not be done
only this condition is fulfilled. Instead we should just have
something like:
if (will_need) {
ptent = pte_mkyoung(ptent);
if (pte_write(ptent))
ptent = pte_mkdirty(ptent);
}
But I do not think this answers your question, which I did not understand.
