Re: [PATCH v2] mm/uffd: UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 06:00:44PM -0500, Peter Xu wrote:
> This is a new feature that controls how uffd-wp handles none ptes.  When
> it's set, the kernel will handle anonymous memory the same way as file
> memory, by allowing the user to wr-protect unpopulated ptes.
> 
> File memories handles none ptes consistently by allowing wr-protecting of
> none ptes because of the unawareness of page cache being exist or not.  For
> anonymous it was not as persistent because we used to assume that we don't
> need protections on none ptes or known zero pages.
> 
> One use case of such a feature bit was VM live snapshot, where if without
> wr-protecting empty ptes the snapshot can contain random rubbish in the
> holes of the anonymous memory, which can cause misbehave of the guest when
> the guest OS assumes the pages should be all zeros.
> 
> QEMU worked it around by pre-populate the section with reads to fill in
> zero page entries before starting the whole snapshot process [1].
> 
> Recently there's another need raised on using userfaultfd wr-protect for
> detecting dirty pages (to replace soft-dirty in some cases) [2].  In that
> case if without being able to wr-protect none ptes by default, the dirty
> info can get lost, since we cannot treat every none pte to be dirty (the
> current design is identify a page dirty based on uffd-wp bit being cleared).
> 
> In general, we want to be able to wr-protect empty ptes too even for
> anonymous.
> 
> This patch implements UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED so that it'll make
> uffd-wp handling on none ptes being consistent no matter what the memory
> type is underneath.  It doesn't have any impact on file memories so far
> because we already have pte markers taking care of that.  So it only
> affects anonymous.
> 
> The feature bit is by default off, so the old behavior will be maintained.
> Sometimes it may be wanted because the wr-protect of none ptes will contain
> overheads not only during UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT (by applying pte markers to
> anonymous), but also on creating the pgtables to store the pte markers. So
> there's potentially less chance of using thp on the first fault for a none
> pmd or larger than a pmd.
> 
> The major implementation part is teaching the whole kernel to understand
> pte markers even for anonymously mapped ranges, meanwhile allowing the
> UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT ioctl to apply pte markers for anonymous too when the
> new feature bit is set.
> 
> Note that even if the patch subject starts with mm/uffd, there're a few
> small refactors to major mm path of handling anonymous page faults. But
> they should be straightforward.
> 
> So far, add a very light smoke test within the userfaultfd kselftest
> pagemap unit test to make sure anon pte markers work.
> 
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/20210401092226.102804-4-andrey.gruzdev@virtuozzo.com/
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/Y+v2HJ8+3i%2FKzDBu@x1n/
> 
> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
> ---
> v1->v2:
> - Use pte markers rather than populate zero pages when protect [David]
> - Rename WP_ZEROPAGE to WP_UNPOPULATED [David]

Some very initial performance numbers (I only ran in a VM but it should be
similar, unit is "us") below as requested.  The measurement is about time
spent when wr-protecting 10G range of empty but mapped memory.  It's done
in a VM, assuming we'll get similar results on bare metal.

Four test cases:

        - default UFFDIO_WP
        - pre-read the memory, then UFFDIO_WP (what QEMU does right now)
        - pre-fault using MADV_POPULATE_READ, then default UFFDIO_WP
        - UFFDIO_WP with WP_UNPOPULATED

Results:

        Test DEFAULT: 2
        Test PRE-READ: 3277099 (pre-fault 3253826)
        Test MADVISE: 2250361 (pre-fault 2226310)
        Test WP-UNPOPULATE: 20850

I'll add these information into the commit message when there's a new
version.

[1] https://github.com/xzpeter/clibs/blob/master/uffd-test/uffd-wp-perf.c

-- 
Peter Xu