From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm: proc: Invalidate TLB after clearing soft-dirty page state Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:41:14 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201123184113.GD11688@willie-the-truck> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201120155514.GA3377168@google.com> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 07:55:14AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:00:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:35:55PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > Since commit 0758cd830494 ("asm-generic/tlb: avoid potential double flush"), > > > TLB invalidation is elided in tlb_finish_mmu() if no entries were batched > > > via the tlb_remove_*() functions. Consequently, the page-table modifications > > > performed by clear_refs_write() in response to a write to > > > /proc/<pid>/clear_refs do not perform TLB invalidation. Although this is > > > fine when simply aging the ptes, in the case of clearing the "soft-dirty" > > > state we can end up with entries where pte_write() is false, yet a > > > writable mapping remains in the TLB. > > > > > > Fix this by calling tlb_remove_tlb_entry() for each entry being > > > write-protected when cleating soft-dirty. > > > > > > > > @@ -1053,6 +1054,7 @@ static inline void clear_soft_dirty(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > > ptent = pte_wrprotect(old_pte); > > > ptent = pte_clear_soft_dirty(ptent); > > > ptep_modify_prot_commit(vma, addr, pte, old_pte, ptent); > > > + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr); > > > } else if (is_swap_pte(ptent)) { > > > ptent = pte_swp_clear_soft_dirty(ptent); > > > set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte, ptent); > > > > Oh! > > > > Yesterday when you had me look at this code; I figured the sane thing > > to do was to make it look more like mprotect(). > > > > Why did you chose to make it work with mmu_gather instead? I'll grant > > you that it's probably the smaller patch, but I still think it's weird > > to use mmu_gather here. > > I agree. The reason why clear_refs_write used the gather API was [1] and > seems like to overkill to me. I don't see why it's overkill. Prior to that commit, it called flush_tlb_mm() directly. > We could just do like [inc|dec]_tlb_flush_pending with flush_tlb_mm at > right before dec_tlb_flush_pending instead of gather. > > thought? I'm not sure why this is better; it's different to the madvise() path, and will need special logic to avoid the flush in the case where we're just doing aging. Will > [1] b3a81d0841a95, mm: fix KSM data corruption
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> To: Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org> Cc: kernel-team@android.com, Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm: proc: Invalidate TLB after clearing soft-dirty page state Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 18:41:14 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <20201123184113.GD11688@willie-the-truck> (raw) In-Reply-To: <20201120155514.GA3377168@google.com> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 07:55:14AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote: > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:00:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:35:55PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote: > > > Since commit 0758cd830494 ("asm-generic/tlb: avoid potential double flush"), > > > TLB invalidation is elided in tlb_finish_mmu() if no entries were batched > > > via the tlb_remove_*() functions. Consequently, the page-table modifications > > > performed by clear_refs_write() in response to a write to > > > /proc/<pid>/clear_refs do not perform TLB invalidation. Although this is > > > fine when simply aging the ptes, in the case of clearing the "soft-dirty" > > > state we can end up with entries where pte_write() is false, yet a > > > writable mapping remains in the TLB. > > > > > > Fix this by calling tlb_remove_tlb_entry() for each entry being > > > write-protected when cleating soft-dirty. > > > > > > > > @@ -1053,6 +1054,7 @@ static inline void clear_soft_dirty(struct vm_area_struct *vma, > > > ptent = pte_wrprotect(old_pte); > > > ptent = pte_clear_soft_dirty(ptent); > > > ptep_modify_prot_commit(vma, addr, pte, old_pte, ptent); > > > + tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr); > > > } else if (is_swap_pte(ptent)) { > > > ptent = pte_swp_clear_soft_dirty(ptent); > > > set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte, ptent); > > > > Oh! > > > > Yesterday when you had me look at this code; I figured the sane thing > > to do was to make it look more like mprotect(). > > > > Why did you chose to make it work with mmu_gather instead? I'll grant > > you that it's probably the smaller patch, but I still think it's weird > > to use mmu_gather here. > > I agree. The reason why clear_refs_write used the gather API was [1] and > seems like to overkill to me. I don't see why it's overkill. Prior to that commit, it called flush_tlb_mm() directly. > We could just do like [inc|dec]_tlb_flush_pending with flush_tlb_mm at > right before dec_tlb_flush_pending instead of gather. > > thought? I'm not sure why this is better; it's different to the madvise() path, and will need special logic to avoid the flush in the case where we're just doing aging. Will > [1] b3a81d0841a95, mm: fix KSM data corruption _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-23 18:41 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 91+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2020-11-20 14:35 [PATCH 0/6] tlb: Fix access and (soft-)dirty bit management Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` [PATCH 1/6] arm64: pgtable: Fix pte_accessible() Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 16:03 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-20 16:03 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-20 19:53 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-20 19:53 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-23 13:27 ` Catalin Marinas 2020-11-23 13:27 ` Catalin Marinas 2020-11-24 10:02 ` Anshuman Khandual 2020-11-24 10:02 ` Anshuman Khandual 2020-11-20 14:35 ` [PATCH 2/6] arm64: pgtable: Ensure dirty bit is preserved across pte_wrprotect() Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 17:09 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-20 17:09 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-23 14:31 ` Catalin Marinas 2020-11-23 14:31 ` Catalin Marinas 2020-11-23 14:22 ` Catalin Marinas 2020-11-23 14:22 ` Catalin Marinas 2020-11-20 14:35 ` [PATCH 3/6] tlb: mmu_gather: Remove unused start/end arguments from tlb_finish_mmu() Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 17:20 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:20 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:20 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-23 16:48 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-23 16:48 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` [PATCH 4/6] mm: proc: Invalidate TLB after clearing soft-dirty page state Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 15:00 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-20 15:00 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-20 15:09 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-20 15:09 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-20 15:15 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 15:15 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 15:27 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-20 15:27 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-23 18:23 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-23 18:23 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 15:55 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-20 15:55 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-23 18:41 ` Will Deacon [this message] 2020-11-23 18:41 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-25 22:51 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-25 22:51 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-20 20:22 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-20 20:22 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-21 2:49 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-21 2:49 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-23 19:21 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-23 19:21 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-23 22:04 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-23 22:04 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` [PATCH 5/6] tlb: mmu_gather: Introduce tlb_gather_mmu_fullmm() Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-23 16:48 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-23 16:48 ` Will Deacon 2021-02-01 11:32 ` [tip: core/mm] tlb: mmu_gather: Remove start/end arguments from tlb_gather_mmu() tip-bot2 for Will Deacon 2020-11-22 15:11 ` [tlb] e242a269fa: WARNING:at_mm/mmu_gather.c:#tlb_gather_mmu kernel test robot 2020-11-23 17:51 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-23 17:51 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` [PATCH 6/6] mm: proc: Avoid fullmm flush for young/dirty bit toggling Will Deacon 2020-11-20 14:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-20 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds 2020-11-20 20:40 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-20 20:40 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-23 18:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-23 18:35 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-23 20:04 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-23 20:04 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-23 21:17 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-23 21:17 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-24 1:13 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-24 1:13 ` Yu Zhao 2020-11-24 14:31 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-24 14:31 ` Will Deacon 2020-11-25 22:01 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-25 22:01 ` Minchan Kim 2020-11-24 14:46 ` Peter Zijlstra 2020-11-24 14:46 ` Peter Zijlstra
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=20201123184113.GD11688@willie-the-truck \ --to=will@kernel.org \ --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \ --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \ --cc=kernel-team@android.com \ --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \ --cc=minchan@kernel.org \ --cc=peterz@infradead.org \ --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.org \ --cc=yuzhao@google.com \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.