Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 16 Oct 2019 16:21:59 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [PATCH v10 3/3] mm: fix double page fault on arm64 if PTE_AF is cleared | From | Palmer Dabbelt <> |
| |
On Tue, 08 Oct 2019 05:39:44 PDT (-0700), will@kernel.org wrote: > On Tue, Oct 08, 2019 at 02:19:05AM +0000, Justin He (Arm Technology China) wrote: >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org> >> > Sent: 2019年10月1日 20:54 >> > To: Justin He (Arm Technology China) <Justin.He@arm.com> >> > Cc: Catalin Marinas <Catalin.Marinas@arm.com>; Mark Rutland >> > <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>; James Morse <James.Morse@arm.com>; Marc >> > Zyngier <maz@kernel.org>; Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>; Kirill A. >> > Shutemov <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>; linux-arm- >> > kernel@lists.infradead.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux- >> > mm@kvack.org; Punit Agrawal <punitagrawal@gmail.com>; Thomas >> > Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>; Andrew Morton <akpm@linux- >> > foundation.org>; hejianet@gmail.com; Kaly Xin (Arm Technology China) >> > <Kaly.Xin@arm.com> >> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 3/3] mm: fix double page fault on arm64 if PTE_AF >> > is cleared >> > >> > On Mon, Sep 30, 2019 at 09:57:40AM +0800, Jia He wrote: >> > > diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c >> > > index b1ca51a079f2..1f56b0118ef5 100644 >> > > --- a/mm/memory.c >> > > +++ b/mm/memory.c >> > > @@ -118,6 +118,13 @@ int randomize_va_space __read_mostly = >> > > 2; >> > > #endif >> > > >> > > +#ifndef arch_faults_on_old_pte >> > > +static inline bool arch_faults_on_old_pte(void) >> > > +{ >> > > + return false; >> > > +} >> > > +#endif >> > >> > Kirill has acked this, so I'm happy to take the patch as-is, however isn't >> > it the case that /most/ architectures will want to return true for >> > arch_faults_on_old_pte()? In which case, wouldn't it make more sense for >> > that to be the default, and have x86 and arm64 provide an override? For >> > example, aren't most architectures still going to hit the double fault >> > scenario even with your patch applied? >> >> No, after applying my patch series, only those architectures which don't provide >> setting access flag by hardware AND don't implement their arch_faults_on_old_pte >> will hit the double page fault. >> >> The meaning of true for arch_faults_on_old_pte() is "this arch doesn't have the hardware >> setting access flag way, it might cause page fault on an old pte" >> I don't want to change other architectures' default behavior here. So by default, >> arch_faults_on_old_pte() is false. > > ...and my complaint is that this is the majority of supported architectures, > so you're fixing something for arm64 which also affects arm, powerpc, > alpha, mips, riscv, ... > > Chances are, they won't even realise they need to implement > arch_faults_on_old_pte() until somebody runs into the double fault and > wastes lots of time debugging it before they spot your patch.
If I understand the semantics correctly, we should have this set to true. I don't have any context here, but we've got
/* * The kernel assumes that TLBs don't cache invalid * entries, but in RISC-V, SFENCE.VMA specifies an * ordering constraint, not a cache flush; it is * necessary even after writing invalid entries. */ local_flush_tlb_page(addr);
in do_page_fault().
>> Btw, currently I only observed this double pagefault on arm64's guest >> (host is ThunderX2). On X86 guest (host is Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4790 CPU >> @ 3.60GHz ), there is no such double pagefault. It has the similar setting >> access flag way by hardware. > > Right, and that's why I'm not concerned about x86 for this problem. > > Will
| |