lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2020]   [Apr]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2 0/3] mm/debug: Add more arch page table helper tests
Date

On 04/08/2020 05:45 PM, Gerald Schaefer wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Apr 2020 12:41:51 +0530
> Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Some thing like this instead.
>>>>
>>>> pte_t pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep);
>>>> pte = pte_mkhuge(__pte((pte_val(pte) | RANDOM_ORVALUE) & PMD_MASK));
>>>>
>>>> We cannot use mk_pte_phys() as it is defined only on some platforms
>>>> without any generic fallback for others.
>>>
>>> Oh, didn't know that, sorry. What about using mk_pte() instead, at least
>>> it would result in a present pte:
>>>
>>> pte = pte_mkhuge(mk_pte(phys_to_page(RANDOM_ORVALUE & PMD_MASK), prot));
>>
>> Lets use mk_pte() here but can we do this instead
>>
>> paddr = (__pfn_to_phys(pfn) | RANDOM_ORVALUE) & PMD_MASK;
>> pte = pte_mkhuge(mk_pte(phys_to_page(paddr), prot));
>>
>
> Sure, that will also work.
>
> BTW, this RANDOM_ORVALUE is not really very random, the way it is
> defined. For s390 we already changed it to mask out some arch bits,
> but I guess there are other archs and bits that would always be
> set with this "not so random" value, and I wonder if/how that would
> affect all the tests using this value, see also below.

RANDOM_ORVALUE is a constant which was added in order to make sure
that the page table entries should have some non-zero value before
getting called with pxx_clear() and followed by a pxx_none() check.
This is currently used only in pxx_clear_tests() tests. Hence there
is no impact for the existing tests.

>
>>>
>>> And if you also want to do some with the existing value, which seems
>>> to be an empty pte, then maybe just check if writing and reading that
>>> value with set_huge_pte_at() / huge_ptep_get() returns the same,
>>> i.e. initially w/o RANDOM_ORVALUE.
>>>
>>> So, in combination, like this (BTW, why is the barrier() needed, it
>>> is not used for the other set_huge_pte_at() calls later?):
>>
>> Ahh missed, will add them. Earlier we faced problem without it after
>> set_pte_at() for a test on powerpc (64) platform. Hence just added it
>> here to be extra careful.
>>
>>>
>>> @@ -733,24 +733,28 @@ static void __init hugetlb_advanced_test
>>> struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>>> pte_t pte = READ_ONCE(*ptep);
>>>
>>> - pte = __pte(pte_val(pte) | RANDOM_ORVALUE);
>>> + set_huge_pte_at(mm, vaddr, ptep, pte);
>>> + WARN_ON(!pte_same(pte, huge_ptep_get(ptep)));
>>> +
>>> + pte = pte_mkhuge(mk_pte(phys_to_page(RANDOM_ORVALUE & PMD_MASK), prot));
>>> set_huge_pte_at(mm, vaddr, ptep, pte);
>>> barrier();
>>> WARN_ON(!pte_same(pte, huge_ptep_get(ptep)));
>>>
>>> This would actually add a new test "write empty pte with
>>> set_huge_pte_at(), then verify with huge_ptep_get()", which happens
>>> to trigger a warning on s390 :-)
>>
>> On arm64 as well which checks for pte_present() in set_huge_pte_at().
>> But PTE present check is not really present in each set_huge_pte_at()
>> implementation especially without __HAVE_ARCH_HUGE_SET_HUGE_PTE_AT.
>> Hence wondering if we should add this new test here which will keep
>> giving warnings on s390 and arm64 (at the least).
>
> Hmm, interesting. I forgot about huge swap / migration, which is not
> (and probably cannot be) supported on s390. The pte_present() check
> on arm64 seems to check for such huge swap / migration entries,
> according to the comment.
>
> The new test "write empty pte with set_huge_pte_at(), then verify
> with huge_ptep_get()" would then probably trigger the
> WARN_ON(!pte_present(pte)) in arm64 code. So I guess "writing empty
> ptes with set_huge_pte_at()" is not really a valid use case in practice,
> or else you would have seen this warning before. In that case, it
> might not be a good idea to add this test.

Got it.

>
> I also do wonder now, why the original test with
> "pte = __pte(pte_val(pte) | RANDOM_ORVALUE);"
> did not also trigger that warning on arm64. On s390 this test failed
> exactly because the constructed pte was not present (initially empty,
> or'ing RANDOM_ORVALUE does not make it present for s390). I guess this
> just worked by chance on arm64, because the bits from RANDOM_ORVALUE
> also happened to mark the pte present for arm64.

That is correct. RANDOM_ORVALUE has got PTE_PROT_NONE bit set that makes
the PTE test for pte_present().

On arm64 platform,

#define pte_present(pte) (!!(pte_val(pte) & (PTE_VALID | PTE_PROT_NONE)))

>
> This brings us back to the question above, regarding the "randomness"
> of RANDOM_ORVALUE. Not really sure what the intention behind that was,
> but maybe it would make sense to restrict this RANDOM_ORVALUE to
> non-arch-specific bits, i.e. only bits that would be part of the
> address value within a page table entry? Or was it intentionally
> chosen to also mess with other bits?

As mentioned before, RANDOM_ORVALUE just helped make a given page table
entry contain non-zero values before getting cleared. AFAICS we should
not need RANDOM_ORVALUE for HugeTLB test here. I believe the following
'paddr' construct will just be fine instead.

paddr = __pfn_to_phys(pfn) & PMD_MASK;
pte = pte_mkhuge(mk_pte(phys_to_page(paddr), prot));

>
> Regards,
> Gerald
>
>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2020-04-09 03:07    [W:0.682 / U:1.708 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site