From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@android.com,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>, Minchan Kim <minchan@kernel.org>,
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: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 15:15:24 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201120151523.GA6861@willie-the-truck> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201120150023.GH3040@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
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().
Ah, so you mean ditch the mmu_gather altogether?
> 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.
>
> Also, is tlb_remote_tlb_entry() actually correct? If you look at
> __tlb_remove_tlb_entry() you'll find that Power-Hash-32 will clear the
> entry, which might not be what we want here, we want to update the
> entrty.
Hmm, I didn't spot that, although ptep_modify_prot_start() does actually
clear the pte so we could just move this up a few lines.
Will
>
>
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-11-20 15:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 43+ 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 ` [PATCH 1/6] arm64: pgtable: Fix pte_accessible() Will Deacon
2020-11-20 16:03 ` Minchan Kim
2020-11-20 19:53 ` Yu Zhao
2020-11-23 13:27 ` Catalin Marinas
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 17:09 ` Minchan Kim
2020-11-23 14:31 ` 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 17:20 ` Linus Torvalds
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 15:00 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 15:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-20 15:15 ` Will Deacon [this message]
2020-11-20 15:27 ` Peter Zijlstra
2020-11-23 18:23 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-20 15:55 ` Minchan Kim
2020-11-23 18:41 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-25 22:51 ` Minchan Kim
2020-11-20 20:22 ` Yu Zhao
2020-11-21 2:49 ` Yu Zhao
2020-11-23 19:21 ` Yu Zhao
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 17:22 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-20 17:31 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-23 16:48 ` 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
2020-11-20 14:35 ` [PATCH 6/6] mm: proc: Avoid fullmm flush for young/dirty bit toggling Will Deacon
2020-11-20 17:41 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-20 17:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2020-11-20 20:40 ` Yu Zhao
2020-11-23 18:35 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-23 20:04 ` Yu Zhao
2020-11-23 21:17 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-24 1:13 ` Yu Zhao
2020-11-24 14:31 ` Will Deacon
2020-11-25 22:01 ` Minchan Kim
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=20201120151523.GA6861@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: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).