Re: [PATCH v5 19/25] arm64/mm: Wire up PTE_CONT for user mappings

[Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>]

On 12/02/2024 15:26, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 12.02.24 15:45, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 12/02/2024 13:54, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>>> If so, I wonder if we could instead do that comparison modulo the access/dirty
>>>>> bits,
>>>>
>>>> I think that would work - but will need to think a bit more on it.
>>>>
>>>>> and leave ptep_get_lockless() only reading a single entry?
>>>>
>>>> I think we will need to do something a bit less fragile. ptep_get() does
>>>> collect
>>>> the access/dirty bits so its confusing if ptep_get_lockless() doesn't IMHO. So
>>>> we will likely want to rename the function and make its documentation explicit
>>>> that it does not return those bits.
>>>>
>>>> ptep_get_lockless_noyoungdirty()? yuk... Any ideas?
>>>>
>>>> Of course if I could convince you the current implementation is safe, I
>>>> might be
>>>> able to sidestep this optimization until a later date?
>>>
>>> As discussed (and pointed out abive), there might be quite some callsites where
>>> we don't really care about uptodate accessed/dirty bits -- where ptep_get() is
>>> used nowadays.
>>>
>>> One way to approach that I had in mind was having an explicit interface:
>>>
>>> ptep_get()
>>> ptep_get_uptodate()
>>> ptep_get_lockless()
>>> ptep_get_lockless_uptodate()
>>
>> Yes, I like the direction of this. I guess we anticipate that call sites
>> requiring the "_uptodate" variant will be the minority so it makes sense to use
>> the current names for the "_not_uptodate" variants? But to do a slow migration,
>> it might be better/safer to have the weaker variant use the new name - that
>> would allow us to downgrade one at a time?
> 
> Yes, I was primarily struggling with names. Likely it makes sense to either have
> two completely new function names, or use the new name only for the "faster but
> less precise" variant.
> 
>>
>>>
>>> Especially the last one might not be needed.
>> I've done a scan through the code and agree with Mark's original conclusions.
>> Additionally, huge_pte_alloc() (which isn't used for arm64) doesn't rely on
>> access/dirty info. So I think I could migrate everything to the weaker variant
>> fairly easily.
>>
>>>
>>> Futher, "uptodate" might not be the best choice because of PageUptodate() and
>>> friends. But it's better than "youngdirty"/"noyoungdirty" IMHO.
>>
>> Certainly agree with "noyoungdirty" being a horrible name. How about "_sync" /
>> "_nosync"?
> 
> I could live with
> 
> ptep_get_sync()
> ptep_get_nosync()
> 
> with proper documentation :)

but could you live with:

ptep_get()
ptep_get_nosync()
ptep_get_lockless_nosync()

?

So leave the "slower, more precise" version with the existing name.

> 
> I don't think we use "_sync" / "_nosync" in the context of pte operations yet.
> 
> Well, there seems to be "__arm_v7s_pte_sync" in iommu code, bit at least in core
> code nothing jumped at me.
>