From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Anshuman Khandual Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 12:13:15 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() Message-Id: <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> List-Id: References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Michael Ellerman , Russell King , Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy , Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:25:13AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures >> duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a >> single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place. >> kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault() >> must not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can > > This is a funny quirk of the English language. "must not" means "is not > allowed to be", not "does not have to be". You are right. Noted for future. Thanks ! > >> @@ -141,6 +142,19 @@ static int __init init_zero_pfn(void) >> core_initcall(init_zero_pfn); >> >> >> +int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) >> +{ >> + int ret = 0; >> + >> + if (kprobes_built_in() && !user_mode(regs)) { >> + preempt_disable(); >> + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) >> + ret = 1; >> + preempt_enable(); >> + } >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> #if defined(SPLIT_RSS_COUNTING) > > Comparing this to the canonical implementation (ie x86), it looks similar. > > static nokprobe_inline int kprobes_fault(struct pt_regs *regs) > { > if (!kprobes_built_in()) > return 0; > if (user_mode(regs)) > return 0; > /* > * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed to call > * kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. > */ > if (preemptible()) > return 0; > if (!kprobe_running()) > return 0; > return kprobe_fault_handler(regs, X86_TRAP_PF); > } > > The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one > correct? Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is not this better ? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A67DC28CC0 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 12:01:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48A922589C for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 12:01:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727191AbfE3MBL (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2019 08:01:11 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:34990 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727001AbfE3MBK (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 May 2019 08:01:10 -0400 Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F10374; Thu, 30 May 2019 05:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.162.40.143] (p8cg001049571a15.blr.arm.com [10.162.40.143]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2F953F5AF; Thu, 30 May 2019 05:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Michal Hocko , Mark Rutland , Christophe Leroy , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , Michael Ellerman , Paul Mackerras , Russell King , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , Tony Luck , Fenghua Yu , Martin Schwidefsky , Heiko Carstens , Yoshinori Sato , "David S. Miller" References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 17:31:15 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:25:13AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures >> duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a >> single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place. >> kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault() >> must not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can > > This is a funny quirk of the English language. "must not" means "is not > allowed to be", not "does not have to be". You are right. Noted for future. Thanks ! > >> @@ -141,6 +142,19 @@ static int __init init_zero_pfn(void) >> core_initcall(init_zero_pfn); >> >> >> +int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) >> +{ >> + int ret = 0; >> + >> + if (kprobes_built_in() && !user_mode(regs)) { >> + preempt_disable(); >> + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) >> + ret = 1; >> + preempt_enable(); >> + } >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> #if defined(SPLIT_RSS_COUNTING) > > Comparing this to the canonical implementation (ie x86), it looks similar. > > static nokprobe_inline int kprobes_fault(struct pt_regs *regs) > { > if (!kprobes_built_in()) > return 0; > if (user_mode(regs)) > return 0; > /* > * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed to call > * kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. > */ > if (preemptible()) > return 0; > if (!kprobe_running()) > return 0; > return kprobe_fault_handler(regs, X86_TRAP_PF); > } > > The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one > correct? Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is not this better ? From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 17:31:15 +0530 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: "linux-arm-kernel" Errors-To: linux-arm-kernel-bounces+infradead-linux-arm-kernel=archiver.kernel.org@lists.infradead.org List-Archive: To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Michael Ellerman , Russell King , Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Christophe Leroy , Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" List-ID: On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:25:13AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures >> duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a >> single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place. >> kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault() >> must not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can > > This is a funny quirk of the English language. "must not" means "is not > allowed to be", not "does not have to be". You are right. Noted for future. Thanks ! > >> @@ -141,6 +142,19 @@ static int __init init_zero_pfn(void) >> core_initcall(init_zero_pfn); >> >> >> +int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) >> +{ >> + int ret = 0; >> + >> + if (kprobes_built_in() && !user_mode(regs)) { >> + preempt_disable(); >> + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) >> + ret = 1; >> + preempt_enable(); >> + } >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> #if defined(SPLIT_RSS_COUNTING) > > Comparing this to the canonical implementation (ie x86), it looks similar. > > static nokprobe_inline int kprobes_fault(struct pt_regs *regs) > { > if (!kprobes_built_in()) > return 0; > if (user_mode(regs)) > return 0; > /* > * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed to call > * kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. > */ > if (preemptible()) > return 0; > if (!kprobe_running()) > return 0; > return kprobe_fault_handler(regs, X86_TRAP_PF); > } > > The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one > correct? Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is not this better ? _______________________________________________ linux-arm-kernel mailing list linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3BAFFC28CC0 for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 12:02:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [203.11.71.2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A127B2437C for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 12:02:48 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A127B2437C Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Received: from lists.ozlabs.org (lists.ozlabs.org [IPv6:2401:3900:2:1::3]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F5n141XLzDqWN for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:02:45 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; spf=pass (mailfrom) smtp.mailfrom=arm.com (client-ip=217.140.101.70; helo=foss.arm.com; envelope-from=anshuman.khandual@arm.com; receiver=) Authentication-Results: lists.ozlabs.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=arm.com Received: from foss.arm.com (usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com [217.140.101.70]) by lists.ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45F5lG00hHzDqTL for ; Thu, 30 May 2019 22:01:12 +1000 (AEST) Received: from usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (unknown [10.72.51.249]) by usa-sjc-mx-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3F10374; Thu, 30 May 2019 05:01:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.162.40.143] (p8cg001049571a15.blr.arm.com [10.162.40.143]) by usa-sjc-imap-foss1.foss.arm.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B2F953F5AF; Thu, 30 May 2019 05:01:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC] mm: Generalize notify_page_fault() To: Matthew Wilcox References: <1559195713-6956-1-git-send-email-anshuman.khandual@arm.com> <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> From: Anshuman Khandual Message-ID: <4f9a610d-e856-60f6-4467-09e9c3836771@arm.com> Date: Thu, 30 May 2019 17:31:15 +0530 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190530110639.GC23461@bombadil.infradead.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-BeenThere: linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux on PowerPC Developers Mail List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Mark Rutland , Michal Hocko , linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-sh@vger.kernel.org, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , linux-mm@kvack.org, Paul Mackerras , sparclinux@vger.kernel.org, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, Yoshinori Sato , Russell King , Fenghua Yu , Stephen Rothwell , Andrey Konovalov , linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, Tony Luck , Heiko Carstens , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Schwidefsky , Andrew Morton , linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, "David S. Miller" Errors-To: linuxppc-dev-bounces+linuxppc-dev=archiver.kernel.org@lists.ozlabs.org Sender: "Linuxppc-dev" On 05/30/2019 04:36 PM, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, May 30, 2019 at 11:25:13AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> Similar notify_page_fault() definitions are being used by architectures >> duplicating much of the same code. This attempts to unify them into a >> single implementation, generalize it and then move it to a common place. >> kprobes_built_in() can detect CONFIG_KPROBES, hence notify_page_fault() >> must not be wrapped again within CONFIG_KPROBES. Trap number argument can > > This is a funny quirk of the English language. "must not" means "is not > allowed to be", not "does not have to be". You are right. Noted for future. Thanks ! > >> @@ -141,6 +142,19 @@ static int __init init_zero_pfn(void) >> core_initcall(init_zero_pfn); >> >> >> +int __kprobes notify_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs, unsigned int trap) >> +{ >> + int ret = 0; >> + >> + if (kprobes_built_in() && !user_mode(regs)) { >> + preempt_disable(); >> + if (kprobe_running() && kprobe_fault_handler(regs, trap)) >> + ret = 1; >> + preempt_enable(); >> + } >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> #if defined(SPLIT_RSS_COUNTING) > > Comparing this to the canonical implementation (ie x86), it looks similar. > > static nokprobe_inline int kprobes_fault(struct pt_regs *regs) > { > if (!kprobes_built_in()) > return 0; > if (user_mode(regs)) > return 0; > /* > * To be potentially processing a kprobe fault and to be allowed to call > * kprobe_running(), we have to be non-preemptible. > */ > if (preemptible()) > return 0; > if (!kprobe_running()) > return 0; > return kprobe_fault_handler(regs, X86_TRAP_PF); > } > > The two handle preemption differently. Why is x86 wrong and this one > correct? Here it expects context to be already non-preemptible where as the proposed generic function makes it non-preemptible with a preempt_[disable|enable]() pair for the required code section, irrespective of it's present state. Is not this better ?