On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 16:20:40 -0800 (PST)
Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Martin, I'd like to say Applauded-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>
> but I do have one reservation: the PageDirty business you helpfully
> draw attention to in your description above.
>
> That makes me nervous, having a PageDirty test buried down there in
> one architecture's mk_pte(). Particularly since I know the PageDirty
> handling on anon/swap pages is rather odd: it works, but it's hard to
> justify some of the SetPageDirtys (when we add to swap, AND when we
> remove from swap): partly a leftover from 2.4 days, when vmscan worked
> differently, and we had to be more careful about freeing modified pages.
I tried to solved the whole thing with arch level code only. The PageDirty
check in mk_pte is essential to avoid additional protection faults for
tmpfs/shmem.
> I did a patch a year or two ago, mainly for debugging some particular
> issue by announcing "Bad page state" if ever a dirty page is freed, in
> which I had to tidy that up. Now, I don't have any immediate intention
> to resurrect that patch, but I'm afraid that if I did, I might interfere
> with your optimization in s390's mk_pte() without realizing it.
>
> > --- a/arch/s390/include/asm/page.h
> > +++ b/arch/s390/include/asm/page.h
> > ...
> > @@ -1152,8 +1190,13
> > static inline pte_t mk_pte(struct page *page, pgprot_t pgprot)
> > {
> > unsigned long physpage = page_to_phys(page);
> > + pte_t __pte = mk_pte_phys(physpage, pgprot);
> >
> > - return mk_pte_phys(physpage, pgprot);
> > + if ((pte_val(__pte) & _PAGE_SWW) && PageDirty(page)) {
> > + pte_val(__pte) |= _PAGE_SWC;
> > + pte_val(__pte) &= ~_PAGE_RO;
> > + }
> > + return __pte;
> > }
>
> Am I right to think that, once you examine the mk_pte() callsites,
> this actually would not be affecting anon pages, nor accounted file
> pages, just tmpfs/shmem or ramfs pages read-faulted into a read-write
> shared vma? (That fits with what you say above.) That it amounts to
> the patch below - which I think I would prefer, because it's explicit?
> (There might be one or two other places it makes a difference e.g.
> replacing a writable migration entry, but those too uncommon to matter.)
Anon page and accounted file pages won't need the mk_pte optimization,
that is there for tmpfs/shmem. We could do that in common code as well,
to make the dependency on PageDirty more obvious.
> --- 3.8-rc6/mm/memory.c 2013-01-09 19:25:05.028321379 -0800
> +++ linux/mm/memory.c 2013-02-06 15:01:17.904387877 -0800
> @@ -3338,6 +3338,10 @@ static int __do_fault(struct mm_struct *
> dirty_page = page;
> get_page(dirty_page);
> }
> +#ifdef CONFIG_S390
> + else if (pte_write(entry) && PageDirty(page))
> + pte_mkdirty(entry);
> +#endif
> }
> set_pte_at(mm, address, page_table, entry);
>
> And then I wonder, is that something we should do on all architectures?
> On the one hand, it would save a hardware fault when and if the pte is
> dirtied later; on the other hand, it seems wrong to claim pte dirty when
> not (though I didn't find anywhere that would care).
I don't like the fact that we are adding another CONFIG_S390, if we could
pre-dirty the pte for all architectures that would be nice. It has no
ill effects for s390 to make the pte dirty, I can think of no reason
why it should hurt for other architectures.
--
blue skies,
Martin.
"Reality continues to ruin my life." - Calvin.
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>