On Thu, May 08, 2014 at 02:45:27PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On 05/07/2014 06:51 PM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 02:21:22PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> >> +/**
> >> + * mvolatile_check_purged_pte - Checks ptes for purged pages
> >> + * @pmd: pmd to walk
> >> + * @addr: starting address
> >> + * @end: end address
> >> + * @walk: mm_walk ptr (contains ptr to mvolatile_walker)
> >> + *
> >> + * Iterates over the ptes in the pmd checking if they have
> >> + * purged swap entries.
> >> + *
> >> + * Sets the mvolatile_walker.page_was_purged to 1 if any were purged,
> >> + * and clears the purged pte swp entries (since the pages are no
> >> + * longer volatile, we don't want future accesses to SIGBUS).
> >> + */
> >> +static int mvolatile_check_purged_pte(pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr,
> >> + unsigned long end, struct mm_walk *walk)
> >> +{
> >> + struct mvolatile_walker *vw = walk->private;
> >> + pte_t *pte;
> >> + spinlock_t *ptl;
> >> +
> >> + if (pmd_trans_huge(*pmd))
> >> + return 0;
> >> + if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
> >> + return 0;
> >> +
> >> + pte = pte_offset_map_lock(walk->mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> >> + for (; addr != end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> >> + if (!pte_present(*pte)) {
> >> + swp_entry_t mvolatile_entry = pte_to_swp_entry(*pte);
> >> +
> >> + if (unlikely(is_purged_entry(mvolatile_entry))) {
> >> +
> >> + vw->page_was_purged = 1;
> >> +
> >> + /* clear the pte swp entry */
> >> + flush_cache_page(vw->vma, addr, pte_pfn(*pte));
> > Maybe we don't need to flush the cache because there is no mapped page.
> >
> >> + ptep_clear_flush(vw->vma, addr, pte);
> > Maybe we don't need this, either. We didn't set present bit for purged
> > page but when I look at the internal of ptep_clear_flush, it checks present bit
> > and skip the TLB flush so it's okay for x86 but not sure other architecture.
> > More clear function for our purpose would be pte_clear_not_present_full.
>
> Ok.. basically I just wanted to zap the psudo-swp entry, so it will be
> zero-filled from here on out.
>
>
> > And we are changing page table so at least, we need to handle mmu_notifier to
> > inform that to the client of mmu_notifier.
>
> So yes, this is one item from my last iteration that I didn't act on
> yet. It wasn't clear to me here that we need to do the mmu_notifier,
> since the page is evicted earlier via try_to_purge_one (and we do notify
> then). But in just removing the psudo-swap entry we need to do a
> notification as well? Is there someplace where the mmu_notifier rules
Hmm, it seems your claim is reasonable so we don't need to call it again, sorry.
But let's double check with KVM people.
> are better documented?
>
> thanks
> -john
>
> --
> 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>
--
Kind regards,
Minchan Kim
--
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>