Re: [PATCH v4 12/17] mm: remember exclusively mapped anonymous pages with PG_anon_exclusive

From: David Hildenbrand
Date: Tue Dec 06 2022 - 04:41:33 EST


On 06.12.22 10:37, Miaohe Lin wrote:
On 2022/12/6 16:43, David Hildenbrand wrote:


Hi David, sorry for the late respond and a possible inconsequential question. :)

Better late than never! Thanks for the review, independently at which time it happens :)


<snip>

diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
index 7a71ed679853..5add8bbd47cd 100644
--- a/mm/hugetlb.c
+++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
@@ -4772,7 +4772,7 @@ int copy_hugetlb_page_range(struct mm_struct *dst, struct mm_struct *src,
                      is_hugetlb_entry_hwpoisoned(entry))) {
              swp_entry_t swp_entry = pte_to_swp_entry(entry);
  -            if (is_writable_migration_entry(swp_entry) && cow) {
+            if (!is_readable_migration_entry(swp_entry) && cow) {
                  /*
                   * COW mappings require pages in both
                   * parent and child to be set to read.
@@ -5172,6 +5172,8 @@ static vm_fault_t hugetlb_cow(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
          set_huge_ptep_writable(vma, haddr, ptep);
          return 0;
      }
+    VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(PageAnon(old_page) && PageAnonExclusive(old_page),
+               old_page);
        /*
       * If the process that created a MAP_PRIVATE mapping is about to
@@ -6169,12 +6171,17 @@ unsigned long hugetlb_change_protection(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
          }
          if (unlikely(is_hugetlb_entry_migration(pte))) {
              swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(pte);
+            struct page *page = pfn_swap_entry_to_page(entry);
  -            if (is_writable_migration_entry(entry)) {
+            if (!is_readable_migration_entry(entry)) {

In hugetlb_change_protection(), is_writable_migration_entry() is changed to !is_readable_migration_entry(),
but

                  pte_t newpte;
  -                entry = make_readable_migration_entry(
-                            swp_offset(entry));
+                if (PageAnon(page))
+                    entry = make_readable_exclusive_migration_entry(
+                                swp_offset(entry));
+                else
+                    entry = make_readable_migration_entry(
+                                swp_offset(entry));
                  newpte = swp_entry_to_pte(entry);
                  set_huge_swap_pte_at(mm, address, ptep,
                               newpte, huge_page_size(h));

<snip>

diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
index b69ce7a7b2b7..56060acdabd3 100644
--- a/mm/mprotect.c
+++ b/mm/mprotect.c
@@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
              pages++;
          } else if (is_swap_pte(oldpte)) {
              swp_entry_t entry = pte_to_swp_entry(oldpte);
+            struct page *page = pfn_swap_entry_to_page(entry);
              pte_t newpte;
                if (is_writable_migration_entry(entry)) {

In change_pte_range(), is_writable_migration_entry() is not changed to !is_readable_migration_entry().

Yes, and also in change_huge_pmd(), is_writable_migration_entry() stays unchanged.

Is this done intentionally? Could you tell me why there's such a difference? I'm confused. It's very
kind of you if you can answer my puzzle.

For change protection, the only relevant part is to convert writable -> readable or writable -> readable_exclusive.

If an entry is already readable or readable_exclusive, there is nothing to do. The only issues would be when turning a readable one into a readable_exclusive one or a readable_exclusive one into a readable one.


In hugetlb_change_protection(), the "!is_readable_migration_entry" could in fact be turned into a "is_writable_migration_entry()". Right now, it would convert writable -> readable or writable -> readable_exclusive AND readable -> readable AND readable_exclusive -> readable_exclusive, which isn't necessary but also shouldn't hurt either.

Many thanks for your explanation. It's really helpful. :)



So yeah, it's not consistent but shouldn't be problematic. Do you see an issue with that?

No, I don't see any issue with that. I just wonder whether we can change "!is_readable_migration_entry" to "is_writable_migration_entry()" to make code
more consistent and avoid possible future puzzle. Also we can further remove this harmless unnecessary migration entry conversion. But this should
be a separate cleanup patch anyway.

Want to send a patch? :)

Thanks!

--
Thanks,

David / dhildenb