On Fri, Feb 16, 2024 at 12:53:43PM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 16/02/2024 12:25, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 10:31:59AM +0000, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> >> +pte_t contpte_ptep_get_lockless(pte_t *orig_ptep)
> >> +{
> >> + /*
> >> + * Gather access/dirty bits, which may be populated in any of the ptes
> >> + * of the contig range. We may not be holding the PTL, so any contiguous
> >> + * range may be unfolded/modified/refolded under our feet. Therefore we
> >> + * ensure we read a _consistent_ contpte range by checking that all ptes
> >> + * in the range are valid and have CONT_PTE set, that all pfns are
> >> + * contiguous and that all pgprots are the same (ignoring access/dirty).
> >> + * If we find a pte that is not consistent, then we must be racing with
> >> + * an update so start again. If the target pte does not have CONT_PTE
> >> + * set then that is considered consistent on its own because it is not
> >> + * part of a contpte range.
> >> +*/
[...]
> > After writing the comments above, I think I figured out that the whole
> > point of this loop is to check that the ptes in the contig range are
> > still consistent and the only variation allowed is the dirty/young
> > state to be passed to the orig_pte returned. The original pte may have
> > been updated by the time this loop finishes but I don't think it
> > matters, it wouldn't be any different than reading a single pte and
> > returning it while it is being updated.
>
> Correct. The pte can be updated at any time, before after or during the reads.
> That was always the case. But now we have to cope with a whole contpte block
> being repainted while we are reading it. So we are just checking to make sure
> that all the ptes that we read from the contpte block are consistent with
> eachother and therefore we can trust that the access/dirty bits we gathered are
> consistent.
I've been thinking a bit more about this - do any of the callers of
ptep_get_lockless() check the dirty/access bits? The only one that seems
to care is ptdump but in that case I'd rather see the raw bits for
debugging rather than propagating the dirty/access bits to the rest in
the contig range.
So with some clearer documentation on the requirements, I think we don't
need an arm64-specific ptep_get_lockless() (unless I missed something).
--
Catalin
