On 30.07.2024 17:49, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.07.24 17:45, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 30.07.24 17:30, Marek Szyprowski wrote:
>>> On 25.07.2024 20:39, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> pte_lockptr() is the only *_lockptr() function that doesn't consume
>>>> what would be expected: it consumes a pmd_t pointer instead of a pte_t
>>>> pointer.
>>>>
>>>> Let's change that. The two callers in pgtable-generic.c are easily
>>>> adjusted. Adjust khugepaged.c:retract_page_tables() to simply do a
>>>> pte_offset_map_nolock() to obtain the lock, even though we won't
>>>> actually
>>>> be traversing the page table.
>>>>
>>>> This makes the code more similar to the other variants and avoids
>>>> other
>>>> hacks to make the new pte_lockptr() version happy. pte_lockptr() users
>>>> reside now only in pgtable-generic.c.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe, using pte_offset_map_nolock() is the right thing to do because
>>>> the PTE table could have been removed in the meantime? At least it
>>>> sounds
>>>> more future proof if we ever have other means of page table reclaim.
>>>>
>>>> It's not quite clear if holding the PTE table lock is really required:
>>>> what if someone else obtains the lock just after we unlock it? But
>>>> we'll
>>>> leave that as is for now, maybe there are good reasons.
>>>>
>>>> This is a preparation for adapting hugetlb page table locking logic to
>>>> take the same locks as core-mm page table walkers would.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> This patch landed in today's linux-next as commit e98970a1d2d4 ("mm:
>>> let
>>> pte_lockptr() consume a pte_t pointer"). Unfortunately it causes the
>>> following issue on most of my ARM 32bit based test boards:
>>>
>>
>> That is ... rather surprising.
>>
>> The issue below seems to point at __pte_offset_map_lock(), where we
>> essentially convert from
>>
>> ptlock_ptr(page_ptdesc(pmd_page(*pmd)));
>>
>> to
>>
>> ptlock_ptr(virt_to_ptdesc(pte));
>
> I'm wondering, is highmem involved here such that the PTE would be
> kmap'ed and virt_to_page() would not do what we would expect it to do?
Yes, highmem is enabled on those boards and all of them have 1GB+ of
RAM. For other kernel configuration options see
arch/arm/configs/exynos_defconfig.
Best regards
--
Marek Szyprowski, PhD
Samsung R&D Institute Poland
