Re: [PATCH] mm: export folio_pte_batch as a couple of modules might need it

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 27.02.24 10:51, Lance Yang wrote:
On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 5:14 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 27.02.24 10:07, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 27/02/2024 02:40, Barry Song wrote:
From: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>

madvise and some others might need folio_pte_batch to check if a range
of PTEs are completely mapped to a large folio with contiguous physcial
addresses. Let's export it for others to use.

Cc: Lance Yang <ioworker0@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: Yin Fengwei <fengwei.yin@xxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Barry Song <v-songbaohua@xxxxxxxx>
---
   -v1:
   at least two jobs madv_free and madv_pageout depend on it. To avoid
   conflicts and dependencies, after discussing with Lance, we prefer
   this one can land earlier.

I think this will also ultimately be useful for mprotect too, though I haven't
looked at it properly yet.


Yes, I think we briefly discussed that.


   mm/internal.h | 13 +++++++++++++
   mm/memory.c   | 11 +----------
   2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/internal.h b/mm/internal.h
index 13b59d384845..8e2bc304f671 100644
--- a/mm/internal.h
+++ b/mm/internal.h
@@ -83,6 +83,19 @@ static inline void *folio_raw_mapping(struct folio *folio)
      return (void *)(mapping & ~PAGE_MAPPING_FLAGS);
   }

+/* Flags for folio_pte_batch(). */
+typedef int __bitwise fpb_t;
+
+/* Compare PTEs after pte_mkclean(), ignoring the dirty bit. */
+#define FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY            ((__force fpb_t)BIT(0))
+
+/* Compare PTEs after pte_clear_soft_dirty(), ignoring the soft-dirty bit. */
+#define FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY               ((__force fpb_t)BIT(1))
+
+extern int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
+            pte_t *start_ptep, pte_t pte, int max_nr, fpb_t flags,
+            bool *any_writable);
+
   void __acct_reclaim_writeback(pg_data_t *pgdat, struct folio *folio,
                                              int nr_throttled);
   static inline void acct_reclaim_writeback(struct folio *folio)
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 1c45b6a42a1b..319b3be05e75 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -953,15 +953,6 @@ static __always_inline void __copy_present_ptes(struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
      set_ptes(dst_vma->vm_mm, addr, dst_pte, pte, nr);
   }

-/* Flags for folio_pte_batch(). */
-typedef int __bitwise fpb_t;
-
-/* Compare PTEs after pte_mkclean(), ignoring the dirty bit. */
-#define FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY            ((__force fpb_t)BIT(0))
-
-/* Compare PTEs after pte_clear_soft_dirty(), ignoring the soft-dirty bit. */
-#define FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY               ((__force fpb_t)BIT(1))
-
   static inline pte_t __pte_batch_clear_ignored(pte_t pte, fpb_t flags)
   {
      if (flags & FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY)
@@ -982,7 +973,7 @@ static inline pte_t __pte_batch_clear_ignored(pte_t pte, fpb_t flags)
    * If "any_writable" is set, it will indicate if any other PTE besides the
    * first (given) PTE is writable.
    */

David was talking in Lance's patch thread, about improving the docs for this
function now that its exported. Might be worth syncing on that.

Here is my take:

Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
   mm/memory.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++----
   1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index d0b855a1837a8..098356b8805ae 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -971,16 +971,28 @@ static inline pte_t __pte_batch_clear_ignored(pte_t pte, fpb_t flags)
         return pte_wrprotect(pte_mkold(pte));
   }

-/*
+/**
+ * folio_pte_batch - detect a PTE batch for a large folio
+ * @folio: The large folio to detect a PTE batch for.
+ * @addr: The user virtual address the first page is mapped at.
+ * @start_ptep: Page table pointer for the first entry.
+ * @pte: Page table entry for the first page.
+ * @max_nr: The maximum number of table entries to consider.
+ * @flags: Flags to modify the PTE batch semantics.
+ * @any_writable: Optional pointer to indicate whether any entry except the
+ *               first one is writable.
+ *
    * Detect a PTE batch: consecutive (present) PTEs that map consecutive
- * pages of the same folio.
+ * pages of the same large folio.
    *
    * All PTEs inside a PTE batch have the same PTE bits set, excluding the PFN,
    * the accessed bit, writable bit, dirty bit (with FPB_IGNORE_DIRTY) and
    * soft-dirty bit (with FPB_IGNORE_SOFT_DIRTY).
    *
- * If "any_writable" is set, it will indicate if any other PTE besides the
- * first (given) PTE is writable.
+ * start_ptep must map any page of the folio. max_nr must be at least one and
+ * must be limited by the caller so scanning cannot exceed a single page table.
+ *
+ * Return: the number of table entries in the batch.
    */
   static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
                 pte_t *start_ptep, pte_t pte, int max_nr, fpb_t flags,
@@ -996,6 +1008,8 @@ static inline int folio_pte_batch(struct folio *folio, unsigned long addr,
                 *any_writable = false;

         VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!pte_present(pte), folio);
+       VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(!folio_test_large(folio) || max_nr < 1, folio);
+       VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(page_folio(pfn_to_page(pte_pfn(pte))) != folio, folio);

Nit:
IIUC, the pte that maps to the first page.
  -       VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(page_folio(pfn_to_page(pte_pfn(pte))) !=
folio, folio);
  +       VM_WARN_ON_FOLIO(pte_pfn(pte) != folio_pfn(folio), folio);

That would only work if the PTE would map the very first subpage of the folio, not any subpage?

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux