On Mon, Nov 25, 2024 at 8:22 AM Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Yu Zhao,
>
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 01:20:27PM -0700, Yu Zhao wrote:
> > HVO was disabled by commit 060a2c92d1b6 ("arm64: mm: hugetlb: Disable
> > HUGETLB_PAGE_OPTIMIZE_VMEMMAP") due to the following reason:
> >
> > This is deemed UNPREDICTABLE by the Arm architecture without a
> > break-before-make sequence (make the PTE invalid, TLBI, write the
> > new valid PTE). However, such sequence is not possible since the
> > vmemmap may be concurrently accessed by the kernel.
> >
> > This series presents one of the previously discussed approaches to
> > re-enable HugeTLB Vmemmap Optimization (HVO) on arm64.
>
> Before jumping into the new mechanisms here, I'd really like to
> understand how the current code is intended to work in the relatively
> simple case where the vmemmap is page-mapped to start with (i.e. when we
> don't need to worry about block-splitting).
>
> In that case, who are the concurrent users of the vmemmap that we need
> to worry about?
Any speculative PFN walkers who either only read `struct page[]` or
attempt to increment page->_refcount if it's not zero.
> Is it solely speculative references via
> page_ref_add_unless() or are there others?
page_ref_add_unless() needs to be successful before writes can follow;
speculative reads are always allowed.
> Looking at page_ref_add_unless(), what serialises that against
> __hugetlb_vmemmap_restore_folio()? I see there's a synchronize_rcu()
> call in the latter, but what prevents an RCU reader coming in
> immediately after that?
In page_ref_add_unless(), the condtion `!page_is_fake_head(page) &&
page_ref_count(page)` returns false before a PTE becomes RO.
For HVO, i.e., a PTE being switched from RW to RO, page_ref_count() is
frozen (remains zero), followed by synchronize_rcu(). After the
switch, page_is_fake_head() is true and it appears before
page_ref_count() is unfrozen (become non-zero), so the condition
remains false.
For de-HVO, i.e., a PTE being switched from RO to RW, page_ref_count()
again is frozen, followed by synchronize_rcu(). Only this time
page_is_fake_head() is false after the switch, and again it appears
before page_ref_count() is unfrozen. To answer your question, readers
coming in immediately after that won't be able to see non-zero
page_ref_count() before it sees page_is_fake_head() being false. IOW,
regarding whether it is RW, the condition can be false negative but
never false positive.
> Even if we resolve the BBM issues, we still need to get the
> synchronisation right so that we don't e.g. attempt a cmpxchg() to a
> read-only mapping, as the CAS instruction requires write permission on
> arm64 even if the comparison ultimately fails.
Correct. This applies to x86 as well, i.e., CAS on RO memory crashes
the kernel, even if CAS would fail otherwise.
> So please help me to understand the basics of HVO before we get bogged
> down by the block-splitting on arm64.
Gladly. Please let me know if anything from the core MM side is unclear.
