Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: optimise pte dirty/accessed bit setting by demand based pte insertion

[Ley Foon Tan]

On Tue, 2018-09-18 at 03:53 +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 07:29:51 -0700
> Guenter Roeck <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2018 at 09:20:34PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > > 
> > > Similarly to the previous patch, this tries to optimise
> > > dirty/accessed
> > > bits in ptes to avoid access costs of hardware setting them.
> > > 
> > This patch results in silent nios2 boot failures, silent meaning
> > that
> > the boot stalls.
> Okay I just got back to looking at this. The reason for the hang is
> I think a bug in the nios2 TLB code, but maybe other archs have
> similar
> issues.
> 
> In case of a missing / !present Linux pte, nios2 installs a TLB entry
> with no permissions via its fast TLB exception handler (software TLB
> fill). Then it relies on that causing a TLB permission exception in a
> slower handler that calls handle_mm_fault to set the Linux pte and
> flushes the old TLB. Then the fast exception handler will find the
> new
> Linux pte.
> 
> With this patch, nios2 has a case where handle_mm_fault does not
> flush
> the old TLB, which results in the TLB permission exception
> continually
> being retried.
> 
> What happens now is that fault paths like do_read_fault will install
> a
> Linux pte with the young bit clear and return. That will cause nios2
> to
> fault again but this time go down the bottom of handle_pte_fault and
> to
> the access flags update with the young bit set. The young bit is seen
> to
> be different, so that causes ptep_set_access_flags to do a TLB flush
> and
> that finally allows the fast TLB handler to fire and pick up the new
> Linux pte.
> 
> With this patch, the young bit is set in the first handle_mm_fault,
> so
> the second handle_mm_fault no longer sees the ptes are different and
> does not flush the TLB. The spurious fault handler also does not
> flush
> them unless FAULT_FLAG_WRITE is set.
> 
> What nios2 should do is invalidate the TLB in update_mmu_cache. What
> it
> *really* should do is install the new TLB entry, I have some patches
> to
> make that work in qemu I can submit. But I would like to try getting
> these dirty/accessed bit optimisation in 4.20, so I will send a
> simple
> path to just do the TLB invalidate that could go in Andrew's git
> tree.
> 
> Is that agreeable with the nios2 maintainers?
> 
> Thanks,
> Nick
> 
Hi

Do you have patches to test?

Regards
Ley Foon