Re: [PATCH 4/6] mm: proc: Invalidate TLB after clearing soft-dirty page state

[Minchan Kim]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:00:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:35:55PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > Since commit 0758cd830494 ("asm-generic/tlb: avoid potential double flush"),
> > TLB invalidation is elided in tlb_finish_mmu() if no entries were batched
> > via the tlb_remove_*() functions. Consequently, the page-table modifications
> > performed by clear_refs_write() in response to a write to
> > /proc/<pid>/clear_refs do not perform TLB invalidation. Although this is
> > fine when simply aging the ptes, in the case of clearing the "soft-dirty"
> > state we can end up with entries where pte_write() is false, yet a
> > writable mapping remains in the TLB.
> > 
> > Fix this by calling tlb_remove_tlb_entry() for each entry being
> > write-protected when cleating soft-dirty.
> > 
> 
> > @@ -1053,6 +1054,7 @@ static inline void clear_soft_dirty(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >  		ptent = pte_wrprotect(old_pte);
> >  		ptent = pte_clear_soft_dirty(ptent);
> >  		ptep_modify_prot_commit(vma, addr, pte, old_pte, ptent);
> > +		tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
> >  	} else if (is_swap_pte(ptent)) {
> >  		ptent = pte_swp_clear_soft_dirty(ptent);
> >  		set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> 
> Oh!
> 
> Yesterday when you had me look at this code; I figured the sane thing
> to do was to make it look more like mprotect().
> 
> Why did you chose to make it work with mmu_gather instead? I'll grant
> you that it's probably the smaller patch, but I still think it's weird
> to use mmu_gather here.

I agree. The reason why clear_refs_write used the gather API was [1] and
seems like to overkill to me.

We could just do like [inc|dec]_tlb_flush_pending with flush_tlb_mm at
right before dec_tlb_flush_pending instead of gather.

thought?

[1] b3a81d0841a95, mm: fix KSM data corruption