Re: [PATCH v1 3/9] mm/memory: further separate anon and pagecache folio handling in zap_present_pte()

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 30.01.24 09:31, Ryan Roberts wrote:
On 29/01/2024 14:32, David Hildenbrand wrote:
We don't need up-to-date accessed-dirty information for anon folios and can
simply work with the ptent we already have. Also, we know the RSS counter
we want to update.

We can safely move arch_check_zapped_pte() + tlb_remove_tlb_entry() +
zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed() after updating the folio and RSS.

While at it, only call zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed() if there is even
any chance that pte_install_uffd_wp_if_needed() would do *something*.
That is, just don't bother if uffd-wp does not apply.

Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
  mm/memory.c | 16 +++++++++++-----
  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 69502cdc0a7d..20bc13ab8db2 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -1552,12 +1552,9 @@ static inline void zap_present_pte(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
  	folio = page_folio(page);
  	if (unlikely(!should_zap_folio(details, folio)))
  		return;
-	ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
-	arch_check_zapped_pte(vma, ptent);
-	tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
-	zap_install_uffd_wp_if_needed(vma, addr, pte, details, ptent);
if (!folio_test_anon(folio)) {
+		ptent = ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
  		if (pte_dirty(ptent)) {
  			folio_mark_dirty(folio);
  			if (tlb_delay_rmap(tlb)) {
@@ -1567,8 +1564,17 @@ static inline void zap_present_pte(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
  		}
  		if (pte_young(ptent) && likely(vma_has_recency(vma)))
  			folio_mark_accessed(folio);
+		rss[mm_counter(folio)]--;
+	} else {
+		/* We don't need up-to-date accessed/dirty bits. */
+		ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, addr, pte, tlb->fullmm);
+		rss[MM_ANONPAGES]--;
  	}
-	rss[mm_counter(folio)]--;
+	arch_check_zapped_pte(vma, ptent);

Isn't the x86 (only) implementation of this relying on the dirty bit? So doesn't
that imply you still need get_and_clear for anon? (And in hindsight I think that
logic would apply to the previous patch too?)

x86 uses the encoding !writable && dirty to indicate special shadow stacks. That is, the hw dirty bit is set by software (to create that combination), not by hardware.

So you don't have to sync against any hw changes of the hw dirty bit. What you had in the original PTE you read is sufficient.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux