On Tue, 2020-10-27 at 10:49 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 06:57:32PM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Mon, 2020-10-26 at 11:15 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 26, 2020 at 12:38:32AM +0000, Edgecombe, Rick P
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 2020-10-25 at 12:15 +0200, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > > From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > When DEBUG_PAGEALLOC or ARCH_HAS_SET_DIRECT_MAP is enabled a
> > > > > page
> > > > > may
> > > > > be
> > > > > not present in the direct map and has to be explicitly mapped
> > > > > before
> > > > > it
> > > > > could be copied.
> > > > >
> > > > > On arm64 it is possible that a page would be removed from the
> > > > > direct
> > > > > map
> > > > > using set_direct_map_invalid_noflush() but
> > > > > __kernel_map_pages()
> > > > > will
> > > > > refuse
> > > > > to map this page back if DEBUG_PAGEALLOC is disabled.
> > > >
> > > > It looks to me that arm64 __kernel_map_pages() will still
> > > > attempt
> > > > to
> > > > map it if rodata_full is true, how does this happen?
> > >
> > > Unless I misread the code, arm64 requires both rodata_full and
> > > debug_pagealloc_enabled() to be true for __kernel_map_pages() to
> > > do
> > > anything.
> > > But rodata_full condition applies to set_direct_map_*_noflush()
> > > as
> > > well,
> > > so with !rodata_full the linear map won't be ever changed.
> >
> > Hmm, looks to me that __kernel_map_pages() will only skip it if
> > both
> > debug pagealloc and rodata_full are false.
> >
> > But now I'm wondering if maybe we could simplify things by just
> > moving
> > the hibernate unmapped page logic off of the direct map. On x86,
> > text_poke() used to use this reserved fixmap pte thing that it
> > could
> > rely on to remap memory with. If hibernate had some separate pte
> > for
> > remapping like that, then we could not have any direct map
> > restrictions
> > caused by it/kernel_map_pages(), and it wouldn't have to worry
> > about
> > relying on anything else.
>
> Well, there is map_kernel_range() that can be used by hibernation as
> there is no requirement for particular virtual address, but that
> would
> be quite costly if done for every page.
>
> Maybe we can do somthing like
>
> if (kernel_page_present(s_page)) {
> do_copy_page(dst, page_address(s_page));
> } else {
> map_kernel_range_noflush(page_address(page), PAGE_SIZE,
> PROT_READ, &page);
> do_copy_page(dst, page_address(s_page));
> unmap_kernel_range_noflush(page_address(page),
> PAGE_SIZE);
> }
>
> But it seems that a prerequisite for changing the way a page is
> mapped
> in safe_copy_page() would be to teach hibernation that a mapping here
> may fail.
>
Yea that is what I meant, the direct map could still be used for mapped
pages.
But for the unmapped case it could have a pre-setup 4k pte for some non
direct map address. Then just change the pte to point to any unmapped
direct map page that was encountered. The point would be to give
hibernate some 4k pte of its own to manipulate so that it can't fail.
Yet another option would be have hibernate_map_page() just map large
pages if it finds them.
So we could teach hibernate to handle mapping failures, OR we could
change it so it doesn't rely on direct map page sizes in order to
succeed. The latter seems better to me since there isn't a reason why
it should have to fail and the resulting logic might be simpler. Both
seem like improvements in robustness though.
