Re: [v3] fs/proc/task_mmu: Implement IOCTL for efficient page table scanning

[Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>]

On 7/27/23 2:10 AM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Jul 2023 at 10:34, Muhammad Usama Anjum
> <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:
>> On 7/25/23 11:05 PM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>>> On Tue, 25 Jul 2023 at 11:11, Muhammad Usama Anjum
>>> <usama.anjum@collabora.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ----
>>>> Michal please post your thoughts before I post this as v26.
>>>> ----
>>> [...]
>>>
>>> Looks ok - minor things below.
>>>
>>> 1. I'd change the _WPASYNC things to something better, if this can
>>> also work with "normal" UFFD WP.
>> Yeah, but we don't have any use case where UFFD WP is required. It can be
>> easily added later when user case arrives. Also UFFD WP sends messages to
>> userspace. User can easily do the bookkeeping in userspace as performance
>> isn't a concern there.
> 
> We shouldn't name the flags based on the use case but based on what
> they actually do. So if this checks UFFD registration for WP, then
> maybe PAGE_IS_WPALLOWED or something better describing the trait it
> matches?
PAGE_IS_WPALLOWED seems appropriate.

> 
>>> 2. For the address tagging part I'd prefer someone who knows how this
>>> is used take a look. We're ignoring the tag (but clear it on return in
>>> ->start) - so it doesn't matter for the ioctl() itself.
>> I've added Kirill if he can give his thoughts about tagged memory.
>>
>> Right now we are removing the tags from all 3 pointers (start, end, vec)
>> before using the pointers on kernel side. But we are overwriting and
>> writing the walk ending address in start which user can read/use.
>>
>> I think we shouldn't over-write the start (and its tag) and instead return
>> the ending walk address in new variable, walk_end.
> 
> The overwrite of `start` is making the ioctl restart (continuation)
> easier to handle. I prefer the current way, but it's not a strong
> opinion.
We shouldn't overwrite the start if we aren't gonna put the correct tag. So
I've resorted to adding another variable `walk_end` to return the walk
ending address.

> 
>>> 3. BTW, One of the uses is the GetWriteWatch and I wonder how it
>>> behaves on HugeTLB (MEM_LARGE_PAGES allocation)? Shouldn't it return a
>>> list of huge pages and write *lpdwGranularity = HPAGE_SIZE?
>> Wine/Proton doesn't used hugetlb by default. Hugetlb isn't enabled by
>> default on Debian as well. For GetWriteWatch() we don't care about the
>> hugetlb at all. We have added hugetlb's implementation to complete the
>> feature and leave out something.
> 
> How is GetWriteWatch() working when passed a VirtualAlloc(...,
> MEM_LARGE_PAGES|MEM_WRITE_WATCH...)-allocated range? Does it still
> report 4K pages?
> This is only a problem when using max_pages: a hugetlb range might
> need counting and reporting huge pages and not 4K parts.
> 
> Best Regards
> Michał Mirosław

I'll send v26 in next hour.

-- 
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum