[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] mm/thp: Correctly differentiate between mapped THP and PMD migration entry

On 10/10/2018 06:13 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
> On 10 Oct 2018, at 0:05, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>> On 10/09/2018 07:28 PM, Zi Yan wrote:
>>> cc: Naoya Horiguchi (who proposed to use !_PAGE_PRESENT && !_PAGE_PSE for x86
>>> PMD migration entry check)
>>> On 8 Oct 2018, at 23:58, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
>>>> A normal mapped THP page at PMD level should be correctly differentiated
>>>> from a PMD migration entry while walking the page table. A mapped THP would
>>>> additionally check positive for pmd_present() along with pmd_trans_huge()
>>>> as compared to a PMD migration entry. This just adds a new conditional test
>>>> differentiating the two while walking the page table.
>>>> Fixes: 616b8371539a6 ("mm: thp: enable thp migration in generic path")
>>>> Signed-off-by: Anshuman Khandual <>
>>>> ---
>>>> On X86, pmd_trans_huge() and is_pmd_migration_entry() are always mutually
>>>> exclusive which makes the current conditional block work for both mapped
>>>> and migration entries. This is not same with arm64 where pmd_trans_huge()
>>> !pmd_present() && pmd_trans_huge() is used to represent THPs under splitting,
>> Not really if we just look at code in the conditional blocks.
> Yeah, I explained it wrong above. Sorry about that.
> In x86, pmd_present() checks (_PAGE_PRESENT | _PAGE_PROTNONE | _PAGE_PSE),
> thus, it returns true even if the present bit is cleared but PSE bit is set.


> This is done so, because THPs under splitting are regarded as present in the kernel
> but not present when a hardware page table walker checks it.


> For PMD migration entry, which should be regarded as not present, if PSE bit
> is set, which makes pmd_trans_huge() returns true, like ARM64 does, all
> PMD migration entries will be regarded as present

Okay to make pmd_present() return false pmd_trans_huge() has to return false
as well. Is there anything which can be done to get around this problem on
X86 ? pmd_trans_huge() returning true for a migration entry sounds logical.
Otherwise we would revert the condition block order to accommodate both the
implementation for pmd_trans_huge() as suggested by Kirill before or just
consider this patch forward.

Because I am not really sure yet about the idea of getting pmd_present()
check into pmd_trans_huge() on arm64 just to make it fit into this semantics
as suggested by Will. If a PMD is trans huge page or not should not depend on
whether it is present or not.

> My concern is that if ARM64’s pmd_trans_huge() returns true for migration
> entries, unlike x86, there might be bugs triggered in the kernel when
> THP migration is enabled in ARM64.

Right and that is exactly what we are trying to fix with this patch.

> Let me know if I explain this clear to you.
>>> since _PAGE_PRESENT is cleared during THP splitting but _PAGE_PSE is not.
>>> See the comment in pmd_present() for x86, in arch/x86/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> if (pmd_trans_huge(pmde) || is_pmd_migration_entry(pmde)) {
>> pvmw->ptl = pmd_lock(mm, pvmw->pmd);
>> if (likely(pmd_trans_huge(*pvmw->pmd))) {
>> if (pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION)
>> return not_found(pvmw);
>> if (pmd_page(*pvmw->pmd) != page)
>> return not_found(pvmw);
>> return true;
>> } else if (!pmd_present(*pvmw->pmd)) {
>> if (thp_migration_supported()) {
>> if (!(pvmw->flags & PVMW_MIGRATION))
>> return not_found(pvmw);
>> if (is_migration_entry(pmd_to_swp_entry(*pvmw->pmd))) {
>> swp_entry_t entry = pmd_to_swp_entry(*pvmw->pmd);
>> if (migration_entry_to_page(entry) != page)
>> return not_found(pvmw);
>> return true;
>> }
>> }
>> return not_found(pvmw);
>> } else {
>> /* THP pmd was split under us: handle on pte level */
>> spin_unlock(pvmw->ptl);
>> pvmw->ptl = NULL;
>> }
>> } else if (!pmd_present(pmde)) { ---> Outer 'else if'
>> return false;
>> }
>> Looking at the above code, it seems the conditional check for a THP
>> splitting case would be (!pmd_trans_huge && pmd_present) instead as
>> it has skipped the first two conditions. But THP splitting must have
>> been initiated once it has cleared the outer check (else it would not
>> have cleared otherwise)
>> if (pmd_trans_huge(pmde) || is_pmd_migration_entry(pmde)).
> If a THP is under splitting, both pmd_present() and pmd_trans_huge() return
> true in x86. The else part (/* THP pmd was split under us … */) happens
> after splitting is done.

Okay, got it.

>> BTW what PMD state does the outer 'else if' block identify which must
>> have cleared the following condition to get there.
>> (!pmd_present && !pmd_trans_huge && !is_pmd_migration_entry)
> I think it is the case that the PMD is gone or equivalently pmd_none().
> This PMD entry is not in use.

Okay, got it.

 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-12 10:00    [W:0.091 / U:53.540 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site