Re: [PATCH v5 00/38] New page table range API

[Andrew Morton]

On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 17:24:40 +0200 Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, 11 Jul 2023 13:36:27 +0100
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Jul 11, 2023 at 11:07:06AM +0200, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> > > Am 10.07.23 um 22:43 schrieb Matthew Wilcox (Oracle):  
> > > > This patchset changes the API used by the MM to set up page table entries.
> > > > The four APIs are:
> > > >      set_ptes(mm, addr, ptep, pte, nr)
> > > >      update_mmu_cache_range(vma, addr, ptep, nr)
> > > >      flush_dcache_folio(folio)
> > > >      flush_icache_pages(vma, page, nr)
> > > > 
> > > > flush_dcache_folio() isn't technically new, but no architecture
> > > > implemented it, so I've done that for them.  The old APIs remain around
> > > > but are mostly implemented by calling the new interfaces.
> > > > 
> > > > The new APIs are based around setting up N page table entries at once.
> > > > The N entries belong to the same PMD, the same folio and the same VMA,
> > > > so ptep++ is a legitimate operation, and locking is taken care of for
> > > > you.  Some architectures can do a better job of it than just a loop,
> > > > but I have hesitated to make too deep a change to architectures I don't
> > > > understand well.
> > > > 
> > > > One thing I have changed in every architecture is that PG_arch_1 is now a
> > > > per-folio bit instead of a per-page bit.  This was something that would
> > > > have to happen eventually, and it makes sense to do it now rather than
> > > > iterate over every page involved in a cache flush and figure out if it
> > > > needs to happen.  
> > > 
> > > I think we do use PG_arch_1 on s390 for our secure page handling and
> > > making this perf folio instead of physical page really seems wrong
> > > and it probably breaks this code.  
> > 
> > Per-page flags are going away in the next few years, so you're going to
> 
> For each 4k physical page frame, we need to keep track whether it is
> secure or not.
> 
> A bit in struct page seems the most logical choice. If that's not
> possible anymore, how would you propose we should do?
> 
> > need a new design.  s390 seems to do a lot of unusual things.  I wish
> 
> s390 is an unusual architecture. we are working on un-weirding our
> code, but it takes time
> 

This issue sounds fatal for this version of this patchset?