On 07/07/2020 11:14 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 09:27:04AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >> On 07/02/2020 05:41 PM, Catalin Marinas wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 06:45:17PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote: >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h >>>> @@ -353,15 +353,92 @@ static inline int pmd_protnone(pmd_t pmd) >>>> } >>>> #endif >>>> >>>> +#define pmd_table(pmd) ((pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == >>>> PMD_TYPE_TABLE) >>>> +#define pmd_sect(pmd) ((pmd_val(pmd) & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == >>>> PMD_TYPE_SECT) >>>> + >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE >>>> /* >>>> - * THP definitions. >>>> + * PMD Level Encoding (THP Enabled) >>>> + * >>>> + * 0b00 - Not valid Not present NA >>>> + * 0b10 - Not valid Present Huge (Splitting) >>>> + * 0b01 - Valid Present Huge (Mapped) >>>> + * 0b11 - Valid Present Table (Mapped) >>>> */ >>> >>> I wonder whether it would be easier to read if we add a dedicated >>> PMD_SPLITTING bit, only when bit 0 is cleared. This bit can be high (say >>> 59), it doesn't really matter as the entry is not valid. >> >> Could make (PMD[0b00] = 0b10) be represented as PMD_SPLITTING just for >> better reading purpose. But if possible, IMHO it is efficient and less >> vulnerable to use HW defined PTE attribute bit positions including SW >> usable ones than the reserved bits, for a PMD state representation. >> >> Earlier proposal used PTE_SPECIAL (bit 56) instead. Using PMD_TABLE_BIT >> helps save bit 56 for later. Thinking about it again, would not these >> unused higher bits [59..63] create any problem ? For example while >> enabling THP swapping without split via ARCH_WANTS_THP_SWAP or something >> else later when these higher bits might be required. I am not sure, just >> speculating. > > The swap encoding goes to bit 57, so going higher shouldn't be an issue. > >> But, do you see any particular problem with PMD_TABLE_BIT ? > > No. Only that we have some precedent like PTE_PROT_NONE (bit 58) and > wondering whether we could use a high bit as well here. If we can get > them to overlap, it simplifies this patch further. > >>> The only doubt I have is that pmd_mkinvalid() is used in other contexts >>> when it's not necessarily splitting a pmd (search for the >>> pmdp_invalidate() calls). So maybe a better name like PMD_PRESENT with a >>> comment that pmd_to_page() is valid (i.e. no migration or swap entry). >>> Feel free to suggest a better name. >> >> PMD_INVALID_PRESENT sounds better ? > > No strong opinion either way. Yours is clearer. > >>>> +static inline pmd_t pmd_mksplitting(pmd_t pmd) >>>> +{ >>>> + unsigned long val = pmd_val(pmd); >>>> >>>> -#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE >>>> -#define pmd_trans_huge(pmd) (pmd_val(pmd) && !(pmd_val(pmd) & >>>> PMD_TABLE_BIT)) >>>> + return __pmd((val & ~PMD_TYPE_MASK) | PMD_TABLE_BIT); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static inline pmd_t pmd_clrsplitting(pmd_t pmd) >>>> +{ >>>> + unsigned long val = pmd_val(pmd); >>>> + >>>> + return __pmd((val & ~PMD_TYPE_MASK) | PMD_TYPE_SECT); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static inline bool pmd_splitting(pmd_t pmd) >>>> +{ >>>> + unsigned long val = pmd_val(pmd); >>>> + >>>> + if ((val & PMD_TYPE_MASK) == PMD_TABLE_BIT) >>>> + return true; >>>> + return false; >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static inline bool pmd_mapped(pmd_t pmd) >>>> +{ >>>> + return pmd_sect(pmd); >>>> +} >>>> + >>>> +static inline pmd_t pmd_mkinvalid(pmd_t pmd) >>>> +{ >>>> + /* >>>> + * Invalidation should not have been invoked on >>>> + * a PMD table entry. Just warn here otherwise. >>>> + */ >>>> + WARN_ON(pmd_table(pmd)); >>>> + return pmd_mksplitting(pmd); >>>> +} >>> >>> And here we wouldn't need t worry about table checks. >> >> This is just a temporary sanity check validating the assumption >> that a table entry would never be called with pmdp_invalidate(). >> This can be dropped later on if required. > > You could use a VM_WARN_ON. > >>>> +static inline int pmd_present(pmd_t pmd); >>>> + >>>> +static inline int pmd_trans_huge(pmd_t pmd) >>>> +{ >>>> + if (!pmd_present(pmd)) >>>> + return 0; >>>> + >>>> + if (!pmd_val(pmd)) >>>> + return 0; >>>> + >>>> + if (pmd_mapped(pmd)) >>>> + return 1; >>>> + >>>> + if (pmd_splitting(pmd)) >>>> + return 1; >>>> + return 0; >>> >>> Doesn't your new pmd_present() already check for splitting? I think >> >> I actually meant pte_present() here instead, my bad. >> >>> checking for bit 0 and the new PMD_PRESENT. That would be similar to >>> what we do with PTE_PROT_NONE. Actually, you could use the same bit for >>> both. >> >> IIUC PROT NONE is supported at PMD level as well. Hence with valid bit >> cleared, there is a chance for misinterpretation between pmd_protnone() >> and pmd_splitting() if the same bit (PTE_PROT_NONE) is used. > > We can indeed have a PROT_NONE pmd but does it matter? All you need is > that pmdp_invalidate() returns the original (present pmd) and writes a > value that is still pmd_present() while invalid. You never modify the > new value again AFAICT (only the old one to rebuild the pmd). But during the time when PMD entry remains invalidated but still present, it will be identical to pmd_protnone() if we choose to use PROT_NONE bit here to have pmd_present() return positive. Because invalidated PMD entry is not necessarily a pmd_protnone() entry. > > It is indeed a problem if set_pmd_at() clears the new > PMD_INVALID_PRESENT bit but my understanding is that it doesn't need to > (see below). > >>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >>>> index 990929c8837e..337519031115 100644 >>>> --- a/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/mm/mmu.c >>>> @@ -22,6 +22,8 @@ >>>> #include <linux/io.h> >>>> #include <linux/mm.h> >>>> #include <linux/vmalloc.h> >>>> +#include <linux/swap.h> >>>> +#include <linux/swapops.h> >>>> >>>> #include <asm/barrier.h> >>>> #include <asm/cputype.h> >>>> @@ -1483,3 +1485,21 @@ static int __init prevent_bootmem_remove_init(void) >>>> } >>>> device_initcall(prevent_bootmem_remove_init); >>>> #endif >>>> + >>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE >>>> +void set_pmd_at(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr, >>>> + pmd_t *pmdp, pmd_t pmd) >>>> +{ >>>> + /* >>>> + * PMD migration entries need to retain splitting PMD >>>> + * representation created with pmdp_invalidate(). But >>>> + * any non-migration entry which just might have been >>>> + * invalidated previously, still need be a normal huge >>>> + * page. Hence selectively clear splitting entries. >>>> + */ >>>> + if (!is_migration_entry(pmd_to_swp_entry(pmd))) >>>> + pmd = pmd_clrsplitting(pmd); >>>> + >>>> + set_pte_at(mm, addr, (pte_t *)pmdp, pmd_pte(pmd)); >>>> +} >>>> +#endif >>> >>> So a pmdp_invalidate() returns the old pmd. Do we ever need to rebuild a >>> pmd based on the actual bits in the new invalidated pmdp? Wondering how >>> the table bit ends up here that we need to pmd_clrsplitting(). >> >> Yes, a pmd is always rebuilt via set_pmd_at() with the old value as >> returned from an earlier pmdp_invalidate() but which may have been >> changed with standard page table entry transformations. Basically, >> it will not be created afresh from the pfn and VMA flags. > > My point is that pmdp_invalidate() is never called on an already invalid > pmd. A valid pmd should never have the PMD_INVALID_PRESENT bit set. > Therefore, set_pmd_at() does not need to clear any such bit as it wasn't > in the old value returned by pmdp_invalidate(). > >> Any additional bit set in PMD via pmdp_invalidate() needs to be >> cleared off in set_pmd_at(), unless it is a migration entry. > > I'm not convinced we need to unless we nest pmdp_invalidate() calls > (have you seen any evidence of this?). You are right, set_pmd_at() does not need to clear that extra bit. As you had suggested earlier, using bit 59 as PMD_PRESENT_INVALID here does work. Will send out the next version soon.