lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Aug]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v1 1/2] mm/hugetlb: fix hugetlb not supporting write-notify
On 08/05/22 20:57, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 05.08.22 20:33, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> > On 08/05/22 20:25, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 05.08.22 20:23, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> >>> On 08/05/22 14:14, Peter Xu wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, Aug 05, 2022 at 01:03:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>>>> diff --git a/mm/mmap.c b/mm/mmap.c
> >>>>> index 61e6135c54ef..462a6b0344ac 100644
> >>>>> --- a/mm/mmap.c
> >>>>> +++ b/mm/mmap.c
> >>>>> @@ -1683,6 +1683,13 @@ int vma_wants_writenotify(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pgprot_t vm_page_prot)
> >>>>> if ((vm_flags & (VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)) != ((VM_WRITE|VM_SHARED)))
> >>>>> return 0;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> + /*
> >>>>> + * Hugetlb does not require/support writenotify; especially, it does not
> >>>>> + * support softdirty tracking.
> >>>>> + */
> >>>>> + if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(vma))
> >>>>> + return 0;
> >>>>
> >>>> I'm kind of confused here.. you seems to be fixing up soft-dirty for
> >>>> hugetlb but here it's explicitly forbidden.
> >>>>
> >>>> Could you explain a bit more on why this patch is needed if (assume
> >>>> there'll be a working) patch 2 being provided?
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> No comments on the patch, but ...
> >>>
> >>> Since it required little thought, I ran the test program on next-20220802 and
> >>> was surprised that the issue did not recreate. Even added a simple printk
> >>> to make sure we were getting into vma_wants_writenotify with a hugetlb vma.
> >>> We were.
> >>
> >>
> >> ... does your config have CONFIG_MEM_SOFT_DIRTY enabled?
> >>
> >
> > No, Duh!
> >
> > FYI - Some time back, I started looking at adding soft dirty support for
> > hugetlb mappings. I did not finish that work. But, I seem to recall
> > places where code was operating on hugetlb mappings when perhaps it should
> > not.
> >
> > Perhaps, it would also be good to just disable soft dirty for hugetlb at
> > the source?
>
> I thought about that as well. But I came to the conclusion that without
> patch #2, hugetlb VMAs cannot possibly support write-notify, so there is
> no need to bother in vma_wants_writenotify() at all.
>
> The "root" would be places where we clear VM_SOFTDIRTY. That should only
> be fs/proc/task_mmu.c:clear_refs_write() IIRC.
>
> So I don't particularly care, I consider this patch a bit cleaner and
> more generic, but I can adjust clear_refs_write() instead of there is a
> preference.
>

After a closer look, I agree that this may be the simplest/cleanest way to
proceed. I was going to suggest that you note hugetlb does not support
softdirty, but see you did in the comment.

Acked-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>

--
Mike Kravetz

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-08-05 22:59    [W:0.083 / U:2.168 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site