On 23.08.22 12:02, Baolin Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 8/23/2022 4:29 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 23.08.22 09:50, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>> On some architectures (like ARM64), it can support CONT-PTE/PMD size
>>> hugetlb, which means it can support not only PMD/PUD size hugetlb
>>> (2M and 1G), but also CONT-PTE/PMD size(64K and 32M) if a 4K page size
>>> specified.
>>>
>>> So when looking up a CONT-PTE size hugetlb page by follow_page(), it
>>> will use pte_offset_map_lock() to get the pte entry lock for the CONT-PTE
>>> size hugetlb in follow_page_pte(). However this pte entry lock is incorrect
>>> for the CONT-PTE size hugetlb, since we should use huge_pte_lock() to
>>> get the correct lock, which is mm->page_table_lock.
>>>
>>> That means the pte entry of the CONT-PTE size hugetlb under current
>>> pte lock is unstable in follow_page_pte(), we can continue to migrate
>>> or poison the pte entry of the CONT-PTE size hugetlb, which can cause
>>> some potential race issues, and following pte_xxx() validation is also
>>> unstable in follow_page_pte(), even though they are under the 'pte lock'.
>>>
>>> Moreover we should use huge_ptep_get() to get the pte entry value of
>>> the CONT-PTE size hugetlb, which already takes into account the subpages'
>>> dirty or young bits in case we missed the dirty or young state of the
>>> CONT-PTE size hugetlb.
>>>
>>> To fix above issues, introducing a new helper follow_huge_pte() to look
>>> up a CONT-PTE size hugetlb page, which uses huge_pte_lock() to get the
>>> correct pte entry lock to make the pte entry stable, as well as
>>> supporting non-present pte handling.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> include/linux/hugetlb.h | 8 ++++++++
>>> mm/gup.c | 11 ++++++++++
>>> mm/hugetlb.c | 53 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> 3 files changed, 72 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/linux/hugetlb.h b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>> index 3ec981a..d491138 100644
>>> --- a/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>> +++ b/include/linux/hugetlb.h
>>> @@ -207,6 +207,8 @@ struct page *follow_huge_addr(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
>>> struct page *follow_huge_pd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> unsigned long address, hugepd_t hpd,
>>> int flags, int pdshift);
>>> +struct page *follow_huge_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>>> + pmd_t *pmd, int flags);
>>> struct page *follow_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
>>> pmd_t *pmd, int flags);
>>> struct page *follow_huge_pud(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
>>> @@ -312,6 +314,12 @@ static inline struct page *follow_huge_pd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +static inline struct page *follow_huge_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> + unsigned long address, pmd_t *pmd, int flags)
>>> +{
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> static inline struct page *follow_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>> unsigned long address, pmd_t *pmd, int flags)
>>> {
>>> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
>>> index 3b656b7..87a94f5 100644
>>> --- a/mm/gup.c
>>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
>>> @@ -534,6 +534,17 @@ static struct page *follow_page_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> if (unlikely(pmd_bad(*pmd)))
>>> return no_page_table(vma, flags);
>>>
>>> + /*
>>> + * Considering PTE level hugetlb, like continuous-PTE hugetlb on
>>> + * ARM64 architecture.
>>> + */
>>> + if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma)) {
>>> + page = follow_huge_pte(vma, address, pmd, flags);
>>> + if (page)
>>> + return page;
>>> + return no_page_table(vma, flags);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> ptep = pte_offset_map_lock(mm, pmd, address, &ptl);
>>> pte = *ptep;
>>> if (!pte_present(pte)) {
>>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> index 6c00ba1..cf742d1 100644
>>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> @@ -6981,6 +6981,59 @@ struct page * __weak
>>> return NULL;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/* Support looking up a CONT-PTE size hugetlb page. */
>>> +struct page * __weak
>>> +follow_huge_pte(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long address,
>>> + pmd_t *pmd, int flags)
>>> +{
>>> + struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>>> + struct hstate *hstate = hstate_vma(vma);
>>> + unsigned long size = huge_page_size(hstate);
>>> + struct page *page = NULL;
>>> + spinlock_t *ptl;
>>> + pte_t *ptep, pte;
>>> +
>>> + /*
>>> + * FOLL_PIN is not supported for follow_page(). Ordinary GUP goes via
>>> + * follow_hugetlb_page().
>>> + */
>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & FOLL_PIN))
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +
>>> + ptep = huge_pte_offset(mm, address, size);
>>> + if (!ptep)
>>> + return NULL;
>>> +
>>> +retry:
>>> + ptl = huge_pte_lock(hstate, mm, ptep);
>>> + pte = huge_ptep_get(ptep);
>>> + if (pte_present(pte)) {
>>> + page = pte_page(pte);
>>> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!try_grab_page(page, flags))) {
>>> + page = NULL;
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> + } else {
>>> + if (!(flags & FOLL_MIGRATION)) {
>>> + page = NULL;
>>> + goto out;
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> + if (is_hugetlb_entry_migration(pte)) {
>>> + spin_unlock(ptl);
>>> + __migration_entry_wait_huge(ptep, ptl);
>>> + goto retry;
>>> + }
>>> + /*
>>> + * hwpoisoned entry is treated as no_page_table in
>>> + * follow_page_mask().
>>> + */
>>> + }
>>> +out:
>>> + spin_unlock(ptl);
>>> + return page;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> struct page * __weak
>>> follow_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
>>> pmd_t *pmd, int flags)
>>
>>
>> Can someone explain why:
>> * follow_page() goes via follow_page_mask() for hugetlb
>> * __get_user_pages() goes via follow_hugetlb_page() and never via
>> follow_page_mask() for hugetlb?
>>
>> IOW, why can't we make follow_page_mask() just not handle hugetlb and
>> route everything via follow_hugetlb_page() -- we primarily only have to
>> teach it to not trigger faults.
>
> IMHO, these follow_huge_xxx() functions are arch-specified at first and
> were moved into the common hugetlb.c by commit 9e5fc74c3025 ("mm:
> hugetlb: Copy general hugetlb code from x86 to mm"), and now there are
> still some arch-specified follow_huge_xxx() definition, for example:
> ia64: follow_huge_addr
> powerpc: follow_huge_pd
> s390: follow_huge_pud
>
> What I mean is that follow_hugetlb_page() is a common and
> not-arch-specified function, is it suitable to change it to be
> arch-specified?
> And thinking more, can we rename follow_hugetlb_page() as
> hugetlb_page_faultin() and simplify it to only handle the page faults of
> hugetlb like the faultin_page() for normal page? That means we can make
> sure only follow_page_mask() can handle hugetlb.
>
If follow_hugetlb_page() can be arch-independent, why do we need the
other arch-dependent functions?
It all looks a bit weird to have two functions that walk page tables and
are hugetlb aware.
Either this screams for a cleanup or I am missing something fundamental.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
