linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>
To: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>, linux-mm@kvack.org
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
	will@kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, shan.gavin@gmail.com,
	chuhu@redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Enhancements
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 10:56:09 +0530	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <30a938df-f5c8-910c-8ddc-52a2d2a0a11e@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a8539200-35ac-2478-c763-e13c95556b25@redhat.com>



On 7/13/21 6:50 AM, Gavin Shan wrote:
> Hi Anshuman,
> 
> On 7/12/21 2:14 PM, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> Though I have not jumped into the details for all individual
>> patches here but still have some high level questions below.
>>
>> On 7/6/21 11:47 AM, Gavin Shan wrote:
>>> There are couple of issues with current implementations and this series
>>> tries to resolve the issues:
>>>
>>>    (a) All needed information are scattered in variables, passed to various
>>>        test functions. The code is organized in pretty much relaxed fashion.
>> All these variables are first prepared in debug_vm_pgtable(), before
>> getting passed into respective individual test functions. Also these
>> test functions receive only the required number of variables not all.
>> Adding a structure that captures all test parameters at once before
>> passing them down will be unnecessary. I am still wondering what will
>> be the real benefit of this large code churn ?
>>
> 
> Thanks for your review. There are couple of reasons to have "struct vm_pgtable_debug".
> 
> (1) With the struct, the old and new implementation can coexist. In this way,
>     the patches in this series can be stacked up easily.

Makes sense.

> (2) I think passing single struct to individual test functions improves the
>     code readability. Besides, it also makes the empty stubs simplified.

Empty stub simplified - reduced argument set in the empty stubs ?

> (3) The code can be extended easily if we need in future.

Agreed.

> 
>>>
>>>    (b) The page isn't allocated from buddy during page table entry modifying
>>>        tests. The page can be invalid, conflicting to the implementations
>>>        of set_{pud, pmd, pte}_at() on ARM64. The target page is accessed
>>>        so that the iCache can be flushed when execution permission is given
>>>        on ARM64. Besides, the target page can be unmapped and access to
>>>        it causes kernel crash.
>>
>> Using 'start_kernel' based method for struct page usage, enabled this
>> test to run on platforms which might not have enough memory required
>> for various individual test functions. This method is not a problem for
>> tests that just need an aligned pfn (which creates a page table entry)
>> not a real struct page.
>>
>> But not allocating and owning the struct page might be problematic for
>> tests that expect a real struct page and transform its state via set_
>> {pud, pmd, pte}_at() functions as reported here.
>>
> 
> Yeah, I totally agree. The series follows what you explained: Except the
> test cases where set_{pud, pmd, pte}_at() is used, the allocated page
> is used. For other test cases, 'start_kernel' based PFN is used as before.
> 
>>>
>>> "struct vm_pgtable_debug" is introduced to address issue (a). For issue
>>> (b), the used page is allocated from buddy in page table entry modifying
>>> tests. The corresponding tets will be skipped if we fail to allocate the
>>> (huge) page. For other test cases, the original page around to kernel
>>> symbol (@start_kernel) is still used.
>>
>> For all basic pfn requiring tests, existing 'start_kernel' based method
>> should continue but allocate a struct page for other tests which change
>> the passed struct page. Skipping the tests when allocation fails is the
>> right thing to do.
>>
> 
> Yes, it's exactly what this series does. Hope you can jump into the details
> when you get a chance :)

I have already started looking into the series. But still wondering if
the huge page memory allocation change and the arm64 specific page fix
should be completed first, before getting into the new structure based
arguments (in a separate series). Although the end result would still
remain the same, the transition there would be better I guess. Do you
see any challenges in achieving that ?

- Anshuman

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-14  5:25 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-07-06  6:17 Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 01/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Introduce struct vm_pgtable_debug Gavin Shan
2021-07-14  6:24   ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-07-19  5:39     ` Gavin Shan
2021-07-20  7:02       ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-07-20 23:07         ` Gavin Shan
2021-07-21  4:20           ` Anshuman Khandual
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 02/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Use struct vm_pgtable_debug in basic tests Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 03/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Use struct vm_pgtable_debug in leaf and savewrite tests Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 04/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Use struct vm_pgtable_debug in protnone and devmap tests Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 05/12] mm/vm_debug_pgtable: Use struct vm_pgtable_debug in soft_dirty and swap tests Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 06/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Use struct vm_pgtable_debug in migration and thp tests Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 07/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Use struct vm_pgtable_debug in PTE modifying tests Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 08/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Use struct vm_pgtable_debug in PMD " Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 09/12] mm/vm_debug_pgtable: Use struct vm_pgtable_debug in PUD " Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 10/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Use struct vm_pgtable_debug in PGD and P4D " Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 11/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Remove unused code Gavin Shan
2021-07-06  6:17 ` [PATCH 12/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Fix corrupted page flag Gavin Shan
2021-07-12  4:14 ` [PATCH 00/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Enhancements Anshuman Khandual
2021-07-13  1:20   ` Gavin Shan
2021-07-14  5:26     ` Anshuman Khandual [this message]
2021-07-15  5:17       ` Gavin Shan
2021-07-18  6:36         ` Anshuman Khandual

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=30a938df-f5c8-910c-8ddc-52a2d2a0a11e@arm.com \
    --to=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=chuhu@redhat.com \
    --cc=gshan@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=shan.gavin@gmail.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH 00/12] mm/debug_vm_pgtable: Enhancements' \
    /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

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).