LKML Archive on lore.kernel.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API
@ 2018-04-24 15:43 Kirill A. Shutemov
  2018-05-04 21:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
  2018-05-07  4:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Kirill A. Shutemov @ 2018-04-24 15:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andrew Morton, Michal Hocko
  Cc: Linus Torvalds, Andy Lutomirski, x86, linux-mm, linux-kernel

Hi everybody,

I've proposed to talk about page able manipulation API on the LSF/MM'2018,
so I need something material to talk about.

Below is how better (arguably) API may look like as implemented for x86-64
(both paging modes).

It's very incomplete (notably no PTI and paravirt support), not split
properly and probably broken in many ways. But it's good enough to
illustrate the idea.

And it doesn't crash immediately :P

So far I converted only sync_global_pgds() and part of copy_page_range()
codepath as an example.

Pros:
 - Naturally scales to different number of page table levels;
 - No weird folding semantics;
 - No need in special casing for top-level page table handling (see
   sync_global_pgds());
 - Simplifies integration of huge page into generic codepath;

Cons:
 - No clear path on how to convert everything the new API.
   Not sure if compatibility layer is possible with a reasonable
   overhead;

Any feedback is welcome.

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/pt.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/pt.h
index e69de29bb2d1..faffd1a17532 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/pt.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/pt.h
@@ -0,0 +1,411 @@
+#ifndef _ASM_X86_PT_H
+#define _ASM_X86_PT_H
+
+/* Arch-private stuff */
+
+/* How many virtual address bits each page table resolve */
+#define BITS_PER_PT	9
+
+/* Number of entries in each page table */
+#define PTRS_PER_PT	(1 << BITS_PER_PT)
+
+/* 0 is 4k entry */
+#define PT_TOP_LEVEL	(pgtable_l5_enabled ? 5 : 4)
+
+/*
+ * How many bottom levels has per-page tables lock
+ * (instead of mm->page_table_lock).
+ */
+#define PT_SPLIT_LOCK_LVLS 2
+
+/*
+ * How manu bottom level we account to mm->pgtables_bytes
+ */
+#define PT_ACCOUNT_LVLS 3
+
+struct pt_ptr {
+	unsigned long *ptr;
+	int lvl;
+};
+
+struct pt_val {
+	unsigned long val;
+	int lvl;
+};
+
+#define PTP_INIT(addr, level)			\
+{						\
+	.ptr = (unsigned long *) (addr),	\
+	.lvl = (level),				\
+}
+
+static inline int __pt_shift(int lvl)
+{
+	return lvl * BITS_PER_PT + PAGE_SHIFT;
+}
+
+static inline int __pt_index(unsigned long addr, int lvl)
+{
+	return (addr >> __pt_shift(lvl)) & (PTRS_PER_PT - 1);
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long __ptv_flags(struct pt_val ptv)
+{
+	return ptv.val & PTE_FLAGS_MASK;
+}
+
+/* Public: can be used from generic code */
+
+/*
+ * Encodes information required to operate on page table entry value
+ * of *any* level.
+ */
+typedef struct pt_val ptv_t;
+
+/*
+ * Encodes information required to operate on pointer to page table entry
+ * of *any* level.
+ */
+typedef struct pt_ptr ptp_t;
+
+/* Dereference entry in page table */
+static inline ptv_t get_ptv(ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	struct pt_val ptv = {
+		.val = *ptp->ptr,
+		.lvl = ptp->lvl,
+	};
+
+	return ptv;
+}
+
+/* Operations on page table values */
+
+static inline bool ptv_bottom(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	return !ptv.lvl;
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long ptv_size(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	return 1UL << __pt_shift(ptv.lvl);
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long ptv_mask(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	return ~(ptv_size(ptv) - 1);
+}
+
+/*
+ * When walking page tables, get the address of the next boundary,
+ * or the end address of the range if that comes earlier.  Although no
+ * vma end wraps to 0, rounded up __boundary may wrap to 0 throughout.
+ */
+static inline unsigned long ptv_addr_end(ptv_t ptv,
+		unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
+{
+	unsigned long boundary = (addr + ptv_size(ptv)) & ptv_mask(ptv);
+
+	if (boundary - 1 < end - 1)
+		return boundary;
+	else
+		return end;
+}
+
+static inline bool ptv_none(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	return !ptv.val;
+}
+static inline bool ptv_present(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	return ptv.val & _PAGE_PRESENT;
+}
+
+static inline bool ptv_bad(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	unsigned long ignore_flags = _PAGE_USER;
+
+	if (ptv_bottom(ptv))
+		return false;
+
+	if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PAGE_TABLE_ISOLATION))
+		ignore_flags |= _PAGE_NX;
+
+	return (__ptv_flags(ptv) & ~ignore_flags) != _KERNPG_TABLE;
+}
+
+static inline bool ptv_huge(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	return ptv.val & _PAGE_PSE;
+}
+
+static inline bool ptv_devmap(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	return ptv.val & _PAGE_DEVMAP;
+}
+
+static inline bool ptv_swap(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	return !ptv_none(ptv) && !ptv_present(ptv);
+}
+
+static inline bool ptv_leaf(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	if (ptv_none(ptv))
+		return false;
+	return ptv_bottom(ptv) || ptv_huge(ptv) ||
+		ptv_devmap(ptv) || ptv_swap(ptv);
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long ptv_pfn(ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	if (ptv_leaf(ptv)) {
+		/* TODO */
+		BUG();
+	}
+
+	return (ptv.val & PTE_PFN_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
+}
+
+/* Operations on page table pointers */
+
+/* Initialize ptp_t with pointer to top page table level. */
+static inline ptp_t ptp_init(struct mm_struct *mm)
+{
+	struct pt_ptr ptp ={
+		.ptr = (unsigned long *)mm->pgd,
+		.lvl = PT_TOP_LEVEL,
+	};
+
+	return ptp;
+}
+
+static inline void ptp_convert(ptp_t *ptp,
+		pgd_t **pgd, p4d_t **p4d, pud_t **pud, pmd_t **pmd, pte_t **pte)
+{
+	switch (ptp->lvl) {
+	case 0:
+		*pte = (pte_t *) ptp->ptr;
+		break;
+	case 1:
+		*pmd = (pmd_t *) ptp->ptr;
+		break;
+	case 2:
+		*pud = (pud_t *) ptp->ptr;
+		break;
+	case 3:
+		if (pgtable_l5_enabled)
+			*pgd = (pgd_t *) ptp->ptr;
+		else
+			*p4d = (p4d_t *) ptp->ptr;
+		break;
+	case 4:
+		*pgd = (pgd_t *) ptp->ptr;
+		break;
+	}
+}
+
+/* Shift to next page table entry */
+static inline void ptp_next(ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	ptp->ptr++;
+}
+
+/* Shift to previous page table entry */
+static inline void ptp_prev(ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	ptp->ptr--;
+}
+
+static inline void ptp_clear(ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	*ptp->ptr = 0;
+}
+
+static inline void ptp_error(ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	printk("ERROR: lvl: %d, ptr: %px, *ptr: %#lx\n",
+			ptp->lvl, ptp->ptr, *ptp->ptr);
+	dump_stack();
+}
+
+static inline void ptp_clear_bad(ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	ptp_error(ptp);
+	ptp_clear(ptp);
+}
+
+static inline bool ptp_none_or_clear_bad(ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	ptv_t ptv = get_ptv(ptp);
+
+	if (ptv_none(ptv))
+		return true;
+
+	if (ptv_bad(ptv)) {
+		ptp_clear_bad(ptp);
+		return true;
+	}
+
+	return false;
+}
+
+static inline unsigned long ptp_page_vaddr(ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	if (ptp->lvl == PT_TOP_LEVEL)
+		return (unsigned long)ptp->ptr;
+	return (unsigned long) __va(*ptp->ptr & PTE_PFN_MASK);
+}
+
+static inline void ptp_walk(ptp_t *ptp, unsigned long addr)
+{
+	ptp->ptr = (unsigned long *)ptp_page_vaddr(ptp);
+	ptp->ptr += __pt_index(addr, --ptp->lvl);
+}
+
+static inline spinlock_t *ptp_lock_ptr(struct mm_struct *mm, ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	if (ptp->lvl < PT_SPLIT_LOCK_LVLS)
+		return ptlock_ptr(virt_to_page(ptp->ptr));
+	return &mm->page_table_lock;
+}
+
+static inline spinlock_t *ptp_lock(struct mm_struct *mm, ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	spinlock_t *ptl;
+	ptl = ptp_lock_ptr(mm, ptp);
+	spin_lock(ptl);
+	return ptl;
+}
+
+static inline void ptp_unmap(ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+}
+
+static inline void ptp_unlock_unmap(ptp_t *ptp, spinlock_t *ptl)
+{
+	if (ptl)
+		spin_unlock(ptl);
+	ptp_unmap(ptp);
+}
+
+static ptv_t ptp_alloc_one(struct mm_struct *mm, ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	ptv_t ptv = {};
+	struct page *page;
+	/* TODO: Hanlde CONFIG_HIGHPTE */
+	gfp_t gfp = GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT | __GFP_ZERO;
+	bool ok;
+
+	if (mm == &init_mm)
+		gfp &= ~__GFP_ACCOUNT;
+
+	page = alloc_page(gfp);
+	if (!page)
+		return ptv;
+
+	/* TODO: Generalize */
+	switch (ptp->lvl) {
+	case 0:
+		BUG();
+		break;
+	case 1:
+		ok = pgtable_page_ctor(page);
+		break;
+	case 2:
+		ok = pgtable_pmd_page_ctor(page);
+		break;
+	default:
+		ok = true;
+		break;
+	}
+
+	if (!ok) {
+		__free_page(page);
+		return ptv;
+	}
+
+	/* No flags set yet, just pfn */
+	ptv.val = page_to_phys(page);
+	ptv.lvl = ptp->lvl;
+
+	return ptv;
+}
+
+static void ptp_free(struct mm_struct *mm, ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	if (ptv.lvl < PT_SPLIT_LOCK_LVLS)
+		ptlock_free(pfn_to_page(ptv_pfn(ptv)));
+}
+
+static void mm_accout_pt(struct mm_struct *mm, ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	if (ptv.lvl <= PT_ACCOUNT_LVLS)
+		atomic_long_add(PAGE_SIZE, &mm->pgtables_bytes);
+}
+
+static void ptp_set(ptp_t *ptp, ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	/* TODO: handle PTI */
+
+	BUG_ON(ptp->lvl != ptv.lvl);
+	*ptp->ptr = ptv.val;
+}
+
+static void ptp_populate(struct mm_struct *mm, ptp_t *ptp, ptv_t ptv)
+{
+	/* TODO: paravirt stuff */
+
+	ptv.val |= _PAGE_TABLE;
+	ptp_set(ptp, ptv);
+}
+
+static bool ptp_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, ptp_t *ptp)
+{
+	spinlock_t *ptl;
+	ptv_t new_ptv;
+
+	new_ptv = ptp_alloc_one(mm, ptp);
+	if (ptv_none(new_ptv))
+		return true;
+
+	/*
+	 * Ensure all page table setup (eg. page tab;e lock and page clearing)
+	 * are visible before the page table  is made visible to other CPUs by
+	 * being linked into other page tables.
+	 *
+	 * The other side of the story is the pointer chasing in the page
+	 * table walking code (when walking the page table without locking;
+	 * ie. most of the time). Fortunately, these data accesses consist
+	 * of a chain of data-dependent loads, meaning most CPUs (alpha
+	 * being the notable exception) will already guarantee loads are
+	 * seen in-order. See the alpha page table accessors for the
+	 * smp_read_barrier_depends() barriers in page table walking code.
+	 */
+	smp_wmb(); /* Could be smp_wmb__xxx(before|after)_spin_lock */
+
+	ptl = ptp_lock(mm, ptp);
+
+	/* Check if somebody has populated it alread */
+	if (ptv_none(get_ptv(ptp))) {
+		mm_accout_pt(mm, new_ptv);
+		ptp_populate(mm, ptp, new_ptv);
+		spin_unlock(ptl);
+	} else {
+		spin_unlock(ptl);
+		ptp_free(mm, new_ptv);
+	}
+
+	return false;
+}
+
+static inline bool ptp_walk_alloc(struct mm_struct *mm, ptp_t *ptp,
+		unsigned long addr)
+{
+	if (ptv_none(get_ptv(ptp)) && ptp_alloc(mm, ptp))
+		return true;
+	ptp_walk(ptp, addr);
+	return false;
+}
+
+#endif /* _ASM_X86_PT_H */
diff --git a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
index 0a400606dea0..7726b55e3ca8 100644
--- a/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
+++ b/arch/x86/mm/init_64.c
@@ -54,6 +54,7 @@
 #include <asm/init.h>
 #include <asm/uv/uv.h>
 #include <asm/setup.h>
+#include <asm/pt.h>
 
 #include "mm_internal.h"
 
@@ -93,97 +94,48 @@ static int __init nonx32_setup(char *str)
 }
 __setup("noexec32=", nonx32_setup);
 
-static void sync_global_pgds_l5(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
+/*
+ * When memory was added make sure all the processes MM have
+ * suitable PGD entries in the local PGD level page.
+ */
+void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
 {
-	unsigned long addr;
-
-	for (addr = start; addr <= end; addr = ALIGN(addr + 1, PGDIR_SIZE)) {
-		const pgd_t *pgd_ref = pgd_offset_k(addr);
-		struct page *page;
-
-		/* Check for overflow */
-		if (addr < start)
-			break;
-
-		if (pgd_none(*pgd_ref))
-			continue;
-
-		spin_lock(&pgd_lock);
-		list_for_each_entry(page, &pgd_list, lru) {
-			pgd_t *pgd;
-			spinlock_t *pgt_lock;
-
-			pgd = (pgd_t *)page_address(page) + pgd_index(addr);
-			/* the pgt_lock only for Xen */
-			pgt_lock = &pgd_page_get_mm(page)->page_table_lock;
-			spin_lock(pgt_lock);
-
-			if (!pgd_none(*pgd_ref) && !pgd_none(*pgd))
-				BUG_ON(pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd) != pgd_page_vaddr(*pgd_ref));
-
-			if (pgd_none(*pgd))
-				set_pgd(pgd, *pgd_ref);
-
-			spin_unlock(pgt_lock);
-		}
-		spin_unlock(&pgd_lock);
-	}
-}
+	ptp_t ptp_ref = ptp_init(&init_mm);
+	unsigned long next;
 
-static void sync_global_pgds_l4(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
-{
-	unsigned long addr;
+	ptp_walk(&ptp_ref, addr);
 
-	for (addr = start; addr <= end; addr = ALIGN(addr + 1, PGDIR_SIZE)) {
-		pgd_t *pgd_ref = pgd_offset_k(addr);
-		const p4d_t *p4d_ref;
+	do {
 		struct page *page;
+		ptv_t ptv_ref = get_ptv(&ptp_ref);
+		next = ptv_addr_end(ptv_ref, addr, end);
 
-		/*
-		 * With folded p4d, pgd_none() is always false, we need to
-		 * handle synchonization on p4d level.
-		 */
-		MAYBE_BUILD_BUG_ON(pgd_none(*pgd_ref));
-		p4d_ref = p4d_offset(pgd_ref, addr);
-
-		if (p4d_none(*p4d_ref))
+		if (ptv_none(ptv_ref))
 			continue;
 
 		spin_lock(&pgd_lock);
 		list_for_each_entry(page, &pgd_list, lru) {
-			pgd_t *pgd;
-			p4d_t *p4d;
+			ptp_t ptp = PTP_INIT(page_address(page), PT_TOP_LEVEL);
+			ptv_t ptv;
 			spinlock_t *pgt_lock;
 
-			pgd = (pgd_t *)page_address(page) + pgd_index(addr);
-			p4d = p4d_offset(pgd, addr);
+			ptp_walk(&ptp, addr);
+			ptv = get_ptv(&ptp);
+
 			/* the pgt_lock only for Xen */
-			pgt_lock = &pgd_page_get_mm(page)->page_table_lock;
+			pgt_lock= &pgd_page_get_mm(page)->page_table_lock;;
 			spin_lock(pgt_lock);
 
-			if (!p4d_none(*p4d_ref) && !p4d_none(*p4d))
-				BUG_ON(p4d_page_vaddr(*p4d)
-				       != p4d_page_vaddr(*p4d_ref));
-
-			if (p4d_none(*p4d))
-				set_p4d(p4d, *p4d_ref);
+			if (ptv_none(ptv))
+				ptp_set(&ptp, ptv_ref);
+			else
+				BUG_ON(ptv_ref.val != ptv.val);
 
 			spin_unlock(pgt_lock);
 		}
 		spin_unlock(&pgd_lock);
-	}
-}
 
-/*
- * When memory was added make sure all the processes MM have
- * suitable PGD entries in the local PGD level page.
- */
-void sync_global_pgds(unsigned long start, unsigned long end)
-{
-	if (pgtable_l5_enabled)
-		sync_global_pgds_l5(start, end);
-	else
-		sync_global_pgds_l4(start, end);
+	} while (ptp_next(&ptp_ref), addr = next, addr != end);
 }
 
 /*
diff --git a/mm/memory.c b/mm/memory.c
index 01f5464e0fd2..475725d839e6 100644
--- a/mm/memory.c
+++ b/mm/memory.c
@@ -77,6 +77,7 @@
 #include <asm/tlb.h>
 #include <asm/tlbflush.h>
 #include <asm/pgtable.h>
+#include <asm/pt.h>
 
 #include "internal.h"
 
@@ -1059,57 +1060,119 @@ copy_one_pte(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
 	return 0;
 }
 
-static int copy_pte_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
-		   pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
-		   unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
+static bool copy_pt_leaf(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
+		ptp_t *dst_ptp, ptp_t *src_ptp, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
+		unsigned long addr, int *rss, swp_entry_t *entry)
 {
-	pte_t *orig_src_pte, *orig_dst_pte;
-	pte_t *src_pte, *dst_pte;
-	spinlock_t *src_ptl, *dst_ptl;
-	int progress = 0;
-	int rss[NR_MM_COUNTERS];
-	swp_entry_t entry = (swp_entry_t){0};
+	pgd_t *dst_pgd = NULL, *src_pgd = NULL;
+	p4d_t *dst_p4d = NULL, *src_p4d = NULL;
+	pud_t *dst_pud = NULL, *src_pud = NULL;
+	pmd_t *dst_pmd = NULL, *src_pmd = NULL;
+	pte_t *dst_pte = NULL, *src_pte = NULL;
 
-again:
-	init_rss_vec(rss);
+	/* TODO: generalize */
+	ptp_convert(dst_ptp, &dst_pgd, &dst_p4d, &dst_pud, &dst_pmd, &dst_pte);
+	VM_BUG_ON(dst_pgd || dst_p4d);
+	ptp_convert(src_ptp, &src_pgd, &src_p4d, &src_pud, &src_pmd, &src_pte);
+	VM_BUG_ON(src_pgd || src_p4d);
+
+	if (dst_pte) {
+		VM_BUG_ON(!src_pte);
+		entry->val = copy_one_pte(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_pte, src_pte,
+							vma, addr, rss);
+		return false;
+	}
+
+	if (dst_pmd) {
+		VM_BUG_ON(!src_pmd);
+		return copy_huge_pmd(dst_mm, src_mm,
+				dst_pmd, src_pmd, addr, vma);
+	}
+
+	if (dst_pud) {
+		VM_BUG_ON(!src_pud);
+		return copy_huge_pud(dst_mm, src_mm,
+				dst_pud, src_pud, addr, vma);
+	}
 
-	dst_pte = pte_alloc_map_lock(dst_mm, dst_pmd, addr, &dst_ptl);
-	if (!dst_pte)
+	BUG();
+}
+
+static int copy_pt_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
+		ptp_t dst_ptp, ptp_t src_ptp, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
+		unsigned long addr, unsigned long end, int *rss)
+{
+	ptp_t orig_dst_ptp, orig_src_ptp;
+	spinlock_t *src_ptl = NULL, *dst_ptl = NULL;
+	unsigned long next;
+	bool bottom;
+	swp_entry_t entry = {0};
+	int progress = 0;
+	int ret;
+
+	if (ptp_walk_alloc(dst_mm, &dst_ptp, addr))
 		return -ENOMEM;
-	src_pte = pte_offset_map(src_pmd, addr);
-	src_ptl = pte_lockptr(src_mm, src_pmd);
-	spin_lock_nested(src_ptl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
-	orig_src_pte = src_pte;
-	orig_dst_pte = dst_pte;
-	arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
+
+	ptp_walk(&src_ptp, addr);
+
+	orig_src_ptp = src_ptp;
+	orig_dst_ptp = dst_ptp;
+
+	bottom = ptv_bottom(get_ptv(&src_ptp));
+again:
+	/* Proactively take page table lock for last level page table */
+	if (bottom) {
+		dst_ptl = ptp_lock(dst_mm, &dst_ptp);
+		src_ptl = ptp_lock_ptr(src_mm, &src_ptp);
+		spin_lock_nested(src_ptl, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
+		arch_enter_lazy_mmu_mode();
+	}
 
 	do {
+		ptv_t src_ptv = get_ptv(&src_ptp);
+		next = ptv_addr_end(src_ptv, addr, end);
+
 		/*
-		 * We are holding two locks at this point - either of them
-		 * could generate latencies in another task on another CPU.
+		 * For bottom level w are holding two locks at this point -
+		 * either of them could generate latencies in another task on
+		 * another CPU.
 		 */
-		if (progress >= 32) {
+		if (src_ptl && progress >= 32) {
 			progress = 0;
-			if (need_resched() ||
-			    spin_needbreak(src_ptl) || spin_needbreak(dst_ptl))
+			if (need_resched())
+				break;
+			if (spin_needbreak(src_ptl) || spin_needbreak(dst_ptl))
+				break;
+		}
+
+		if (ptv_leaf(src_ptv)) {
+			if (copy_pt_leaf(dst_mm, src_mm, &dst_ptp, &src_ptp,
+						vma, addr, rss, &entry))
+				return -ENOMEM;
+			if (entry.val)
 				break;
+			progress += 8;
+			continue;
 		}
-		if (pte_none(*src_pte)) {
+
+		if (ptp_none_or_clear_bad(&src_ptp)) {
 			progress++;
 			continue;
 		}
-		entry.val = copy_one_pte(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_pte, src_pte,
-							vma, addr, rss);
-		if (entry.val)
+
+		ret = copy_pt_range(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_ptp, src_ptp,
+					vma, addr, next, rss);
+		if (ret)
 			break;
-		progress += 8;
-	} while (dst_pte++, src_pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE, addr != end);
+	} while (ptp_next(&dst_ptp), ptp_next(&src_ptp),
+			addr = next, addr != end);
+
+	if (bottom)
+		arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
+
+	ptp_unlock_unmap(&orig_src_ptp, src_ptl);
+	ptp_unlock_unmap(&orig_dst_ptp, dst_ptl);
 
-	arch_leave_lazy_mmu_mode();
-	spin_unlock(src_ptl);
-	pte_unmap(orig_src_pte);
-	add_mm_rss_vec(dst_mm, rss);
-	pte_unmap_unlock(orig_dst_pte, dst_ptl);
 	cond_resched();
 
 	if (entry.val) {
@@ -1117,110 +1180,21 @@ static int copy_pte_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
 			return -ENOMEM;
 		progress = 0;
 	}
+
 	if (addr != end)
 		goto again;
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static inline int copy_pmd_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
-		pud_t *dst_pud, pud_t *src_pud, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
-		unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
-{
-	pmd_t *src_pmd, *dst_pmd;
-	unsigned long next;
 
-	dst_pmd = pmd_alloc(dst_mm, dst_pud, addr);
-	if (!dst_pmd)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-	src_pmd = pmd_offset(src_pud, addr);
-	do {
-		next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
-		if (is_swap_pmd(*src_pmd) || pmd_trans_huge(*src_pmd)
-			|| pmd_devmap(*src_pmd)) {
-			int err;
-			VM_BUG_ON_VMA(next-addr != HPAGE_PMD_SIZE, vma);
-			err = copy_huge_pmd(dst_mm, src_mm,
-					    dst_pmd, src_pmd, addr, vma);
-			if (err == -ENOMEM)
-				return -ENOMEM;
-			if (!err)
-				continue;
-			/* fall through */
-		}
-		if (pmd_none_or_clear_bad(src_pmd))
-			continue;
-		if (copy_pte_range(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_pmd, src_pmd,
-						vma, addr, next))
-			return -ENOMEM;
-	} while (dst_pmd++, src_pmd++, addr = next, addr != end);
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static inline int copy_pud_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
-		p4d_t *dst_p4d, p4d_t *src_p4d, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
-		unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
-{
-	pud_t *src_pud, *dst_pud;
-	unsigned long next;
-
-	dst_pud = pud_alloc(dst_mm, dst_p4d, addr);
-	if (!dst_pud)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-	src_pud = pud_offset(src_p4d, addr);
-	do {
-		next = pud_addr_end(addr, end);
-		if (pud_trans_huge(*src_pud) || pud_devmap(*src_pud)) {
-			int err;
-
-			VM_BUG_ON_VMA(next-addr != HPAGE_PUD_SIZE, vma);
-			err = copy_huge_pud(dst_mm, src_mm,
-					    dst_pud, src_pud, addr, vma);
-			if (err == -ENOMEM)
-				return -ENOMEM;
-			if (!err)
-				continue;
-			/* fall through */
-		}
-		if (pud_none_or_clear_bad(src_pud))
-			continue;
-		if (copy_pmd_range(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_pud, src_pud,
-						vma, addr, next))
-			return -ENOMEM;
-	} while (dst_pud++, src_pud++, addr = next, addr != end);
-	return 0;
-}
-
-static inline int copy_p4d_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
-		pgd_t *dst_pgd, pgd_t *src_pgd, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
-		unsigned long addr, unsigned long end)
-{
-	p4d_t *src_p4d, *dst_p4d;
-	unsigned long next;
-
-	dst_p4d = p4d_alloc(dst_mm, dst_pgd, addr);
-	if (!dst_p4d)
-		return -ENOMEM;
-	src_p4d = p4d_offset(src_pgd, addr);
-	do {
-		next = p4d_addr_end(addr, end);
-		if (p4d_none_or_clear_bad(src_p4d))
-			continue;
-		if (copy_pud_range(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_p4d, src_p4d,
-						vma, addr, next))
-			return -ENOMEM;
-	} while (dst_p4d++, src_p4d++, addr = next, addr != end);
 	return 0;
 }
 
 int copy_page_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
 		struct vm_area_struct *vma)
 {
-	pgd_t *src_pgd, *dst_pgd;
-	unsigned long next;
 	unsigned long addr = vma->vm_start;
 	unsigned long end = vma->vm_end;
 	unsigned long mmun_start;	/* For mmu_notifiers */
 	unsigned long mmun_end;		/* For mmu_notifiers */
+	int rss[NR_MM_COUNTERS];
 	bool is_cow;
 	int ret;
 
@@ -1261,18 +1235,11 @@ int copy_page_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, struct mm_struct *src_mm,
 						    mmun_end);
 
 	ret = 0;
-	dst_pgd = pgd_offset(dst_mm, addr);
-	src_pgd = pgd_offset(src_mm, addr);
-	do {
-		next = pgd_addr_end(addr, end);
-		if (pgd_none_or_clear_bad(src_pgd))
-			continue;
-		if (unlikely(copy_p4d_range(dst_mm, src_mm, dst_pgd, src_pgd,
-					    vma, addr, next))) {
-			ret = -ENOMEM;
-			break;
-		}
-	} while (dst_pgd++, src_pgd++, addr = next, addr != end);
+
+	init_rss_vec(rss);
+	ret = copy_pt_range(dst_mm, src_mm, ptp_init(dst_mm), ptp_init(src_mm),
+			vma, addr, end, rss);
+	add_mm_rss_vec(dst_mm, rss);
 
 	if (is_cow)
 		mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(src_mm, mmun_start, mmun_end);
-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API
  2018-04-24 15:43 Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API Kirill A. Shutemov
@ 2018-05-04 21:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
  2018-05-04 21:49   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
  2018-05-07  4:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Wilcox @ 2018-05-04 21:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kirill A. Shutemov
  Cc: Andrew Morton, Michal Hocko, Linus Torvalds, Andy Lutomirski,
	x86, linux-mm, linux-kernel

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:43:56PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> +struct pt_ptr {
> +	unsigned long *ptr;
> +	int lvl;
> +};

On x86, you've got three kinds of paging scheme, referred to in the manual
as 32-bit, PAE and 4-level.  On 32-bit, you've got 3 levels (Directory,
Table and Entry), and you can encode those three levels in the bottom
two bits of the pointer.  With PAE and 4L, pointers are 64-bit aligned,
so you can encode up to eight levels in the bottom three bits of the
pointer.

> +struct pt_val {
> +	unsigned long val;
> +	int lvl;
> +};

I don't think it's possible to shrink this down to a single ulong.
_Maybe_ it is if you can squirm a single bit free from the !pte_present
case.

... this is only for x86 4L and maybe 32 paging, right?  It'd need to
use unsigned long val[2] for PAE.

I'm going to think about this some more.  There's a lot of potential here.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API
  2018-05-04 21:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
@ 2018-05-04 21:49   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Kirill A. Shutemov @ 2018-05-04 21:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matthew Wilcox
  Cc: Andrew Morton, Michal Hocko, Linus Torvalds, Andy Lutomirski,
	x86, linux-mm, linux-kernel

On Fri, May 04, 2018 at 09:12:44PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 06:43:56PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > +struct pt_ptr {
> > +	unsigned long *ptr;
> > +	int lvl;
> > +};
> 
> On x86, you've got three kinds of paging scheme, referred to in the manual
> as 32-bit, PAE and 4-level.

You forgot 5-level :)

(although it's not in the manual yet, so fair enough)

> On 32-bit, you've got 3 levels (Directory, Table and Entry), and you can
> encode those three levels in the bottom two bits of the pointer.  With
> PAE and 4L, pointers are 64-bit aligned, so you can encode up to eight
> levels in the bottom three bits of the pointer.

I didn't thought about this. Thank you.

> > +struct pt_val {
> > +	unsigned long val;
> > +	int lvl;
> > +};
> 
> I don't think it's possible to shrink this down to a single ulong.
> _Maybe_ it is if you can squirm a single bit free from the !pte_present
> case.

I don't think it worth it. It gets tricky quickly.

> ... this is only for x86 4L and maybe 32 paging, right?  It'd need to
> use unsigned long val[2] for PAE.

I didn't look at 32-bit at all. But 4L and 5L [kinda] work.

> I'm going to think about this some more.  There's a lot of potential here.

Thanks for the input.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API
  2018-04-24 15:43 Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API Kirill A. Shutemov
  2018-05-04 21:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
@ 2018-05-07  4:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
  2018-05-07 11:31   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andy Lutomirski @ 2018-05-07  4:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kirill A. Shutemov
  Cc: Andrew Morton, Michal Hocko, Linus Torvalds, X86 ML, Linux-MM, LKML

On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:44 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:

> Hi everybody,

> I've proposed to talk about page able manipulation API on the LSF/MM'2018,
> so I need something material to talk about.


I gave it a quick read.  I like the concept a lot, and I have a few
comments.

> +/*
> + * How manu bottom level we account to mm->pgtables_bytes
> + */
> +#define PT_ACCOUNT_LVLS 3
> +
> +struct pt_ptr {
> +       unsigned long *ptr;
> +       int lvl;
> +};
> +

I think you've inherited something that I consider to be a defect in the
old code: you're conflating page *tables* with page table *entries*.  Your
'struct pt_ptr' sounds like a pointer to an entire page table, but AFAICT
you're using it to point to a specific entry within a table.  I think that
both the new core code and the code that uses it would be clearer and less
error prone if you made the distinction explicit.  I can think of two clean
ways to do it:

1. Add a struct pt_entry_ptr, and make it so that get_ptv(), etc take a
pt_entry_ptr instead of a pt_ptr.  Add a helper to find a pt_entry_ptr
given a pt_ptr and either an index or an address.

2. Don't allow pointers to page table entries at all.  Instead, get_ptv()
would take an address or an index parameter.

Also, what does lvl == 0 mean?  Is it the top or the bottom?  I think a
comment would be helpful.

> +/*
> + * When walking page tables, get the address of the next boundary,
> + * or the end address of the range if that comes earlier.  Although no
> + * vma end wraps to 0, rounded up __boundary may wrap to 0 throughout.
> + */

I read this comment twice, and I still don't get it.  Can you clarify what
this function does and why you would use it?

> +/* Operations on page table pointers */
> +
> +/* Initialize ptp_t with pointer to top page table level. */
> +static inline ptp_t ptp_init(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> +       struct pt_ptr ptp ={
> +               .ptr = (unsigned long *)mm->pgd,
> +               .lvl = PT_TOP_LEVEL,
> +       };
> +
> +       return ptp;
> +}
> +

On some architectures, there are multiple page table roots.  For example,
ARM64 has a root for the kernel half of the address space and a root for
the user half (at least -- I don't fully understand it).  x86 PAE sort-of
has four roots.  Would it make sense to expose this in the API for real?
For example, ptp_init(mm) could be replaced with ptp_init(mm, addr).  This
would make it a bit cleaner to handle an separate user and kernel tables.
  (As it stands, what is supposed to happen on ARM if you do
ptp_init(something that isn't init_mm) and then walk it to look for a
kernel address?)

Also, ptp_init() seems oddly named for me.  ptp_get_root_for_mm(),
perhaps?  There could also be ptp_get_kernel_root() to get the root for the
init_mm's tables.

> +static inline void ptp_walk(ptp_t *ptp, unsigned long addr)
> +{
> +       ptp->ptr = (unsigned long *)ptp_page_vaddr(ptp);
> +       ptp->ptr += __pt_index(addr, --ptp->lvl);
> +}

Can you add a comment that says what this function does?  Why does it not
change the level?

> +
> +static void ptp_free(struct mm_struct *mm, ptv_t ptv)
> +{
> +       if (ptv.lvl < PT_SPLIT_LOCK_LVLS)
> +               ptlock_free(pfn_to_page(ptv_pfn(ptv)));
> +}
> +

As it stands, this is a function that seems easy easy to misuse given the
confusion between page tables and page table entries.


Finally, a general comment.  Actually fully implementing this the way
you've done it seems like a giant mess given that you need to support all
architectures.  But couldn't you implement the new API as a wrapper around
the old API so you automatically get all architectures?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API
  2018-05-07  4:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
@ 2018-05-07 11:31   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
  2018-05-07 12:23     ` Matthew Wilcox
  2018-05-08 21:04     ` Andy Lutomirski
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Kirill A. Shutemov @ 2018-05-07 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andy Lutomirski
  Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov, Andrew Morton, Michal Hocko, Linus Torvalds,
	X86 ML, Linux-MM, LKML

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:51:57AM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:44 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <
> kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi everybody,
> 
> > I've proposed to talk about page able manipulation API on the LSF/MM'2018,
> > so I need something material to talk about.
> 
> 
> I gave it a quick read.  I like the concept a lot, and I have a few
> comments.

Thank you for the input.

> > +/*
> > + * How manu bottom level we account to mm->pgtables_bytes
> > + */
> > +#define PT_ACCOUNT_LVLS 3
> > +
> > +struct pt_ptr {
> > +       unsigned long *ptr;
> > +       int lvl;
> > +};
> > +
> 
> I think you've inherited something that I consider to be a defect in the
> old code: you're conflating page *tables* with page table *entries*.  Your
> 'struct pt_ptr' sounds like a pointer to an entire page table, but AFAICT
> you're using it to point to a specific entry within a table.  I think that
> both the new core code and the code that uses it would be clearer and less
> error prone if you made the distinction explicit.  I can think of two clean
> ways to do it:
> 
> 1. Add a struct pt_entry_ptr, and make it so that get_ptv(), etc take a
> pt_entry_ptr instead of a pt_ptr.  Add a helper to find a pt_entry_ptr
> given a pt_ptr and either an index or an address.
> 
> 2. Don't allow pointers to page table entries at all.  Instead, get_ptv()
> would take an address or an index parameter.

Well, I'm not sure how useful pointer to whole page tables are.
Where do you them useful?

How I see the picture so far:

- ptp_t represent a pointer to an entry in a page table.

  In x86-64 case I pretend that CR3 is single-entry page table. It
  requires a special threatement in ptp_page_vaddr(), but works fine
  otherwise.

- ptv_t represents a value that dereferenced from ptp_t or can be set to
  ptp_t.

It's trivial to find the start of page table if we would need it by
masking out botom bits from ptp->ptr. It works on x86 and should be
possible on any architecture.

> Also, what does lvl == 0 mean?  Is it the top or the bottom?  I think a
> comment would be helpful.

It is bottom. But it should be up to architecture to decide.

> 
> > +/*
> > + * When walking page tables, get the address of the next boundary,
> > + * or the end address of the range if that comes earlier.  Although no
> > + * vma end wraps to 0, rounded up __boundary may wrap to 0 throughout.
> > + */
> 
> I read this comment twice, and I still don't get it.  Can you clarify what
> this function does and why you would use it?

That's basically ported variant of p?d_addr_end. It helps step address by
right value for the page table entry and handles wrapping properly.

See example in copy_pt_range().

> > +/* Operations on page table pointers */
> > +
> > +/* Initialize ptp_t with pointer to top page table level. */
> > +static inline ptp_t ptp_init(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > +       struct pt_ptr ptp ={
> > +               .ptr = (unsigned long *)mm->pgd,
> > +               .lvl = PT_TOP_LEVEL,
> > +       };
> > +
> > +       return ptp;
> > +}
> > +
> 
> On some architectures, there are multiple page table roots.  For example,
> ARM64 has a root for the kernel half of the address space and a root for
> the user half (at least -- I don't fully understand it).  x86 PAE sort-of
> has four roots.  Would it make sense to expose this in the API for
> real?

I will give it a thought.

Is there a reason not to threat it as an additional page table layer and
deal with it in a unified way?

> For example, ptp_init(mm) could be replaced with ptp_init(mm, addr).  This
> would make it a bit cleaner to handle an separate user and kernel tables.
>   (As it stands, what is supposed to happen on ARM if you do
> ptp_init(something that isn't init_mm) and then walk it to look for a
> kernel address?)

IIUC, we can handle it in ptp_walk() since we have all may handle root in
a special way as I do for x86-64.

> Also, ptp_init() seems oddly named for me.  ptp_get_root_for_mm(),
> perhaps?  There could also be ptp_get_kernel_root() to get the root for the
> init_mm's tables.

Yeah, sounds better.

> > +static inline void ptp_walk(ptp_t *ptp, unsigned long addr)
> > +{
> > +       ptp->ptr = (unsigned long *)ptp_page_vaddr(ptp);
> > +       ptp->ptr += __pt_index(addr, --ptp->lvl);
> > +}
> 
> Can you add a comment that says what this function does?

Okay, I will.

> Why does it not change the level?

It does. --ptp->lvl.

> > +
> > +static void ptp_free(struct mm_struct *mm, ptv_t ptv)
> > +{
> > +       if (ptv.lvl < PT_SPLIT_LOCK_LVLS)
> > +               ptlock_free(pfn_to_page(ptv_pfn(ptv)));
> > +}
> > +
> 
> As it stands, this is a function that seems easy easy to misuse given the
> confusion between page tables and page table entries.

Hm. I probably have a blind spot, but I don't see it.

The function has to be named better for sure.

> Finally, a general comment.  Actually fully implementing this the way
> you've done it seems like a giant mess given that you need to support all
> architectures.  But couldn't you implement the new API as a wrapper around
> the old API so you automatically get all architectures?

I will look into this. But I'm not sure if it possbile without measurable
overhead.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API
  2018-05-07 11:31   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
@ 2018-05-07 12:23     ` Matthew Wilcox
  2018-05-07 13:10       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
  2018-05-08 21:04     ` Andy Lutomirski
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Matthew Wilcox @ 2018-05-07 12:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kirill A. Shutemov
  Cc: Andy Lutomirski, Kirill A. Shutemov, Andrew Morton, Michal Hocko,
	Linus Torvalds, X86 ML, Linux-MM, LKML

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 02:31:25PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > Also, what does lvl == 0 mean?  Is it the top or the bottom?  I think a
> > comment would be helpful.
> 
> It is bottom. But it should be up to architecture to decide.

That's not true because ...

> > > +static inline void ptp_walk(ptp_t *ptp, unsigned long addr)
> > > +{
> > > +       ptp->ptr = (unsigned long *)ptp_page_vaddr(ptp);
> > > +       ptp->ptr += __pt_index(addr, --ptp->lvl);
> > > +}
> > 
> > Can you add a comment that says what this function does?
> 
> Okay, I will.
> 
> > Why does it not change the level?
> 
> It does. --ptp->lvl.

... you've hardcoded that walking down decrements the level by 1.

I don't see that as a defect; it's just part of the API that needs
documenting.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API
  2018-05-07 12:23     ` Matthew Wilcox
@ 2018-05-07 13:10       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Kirill A. Shutemov @ 2018-05-07 13:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Matthew Wilcox
  Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov, Andy Lutomirski, Andrew Morton, Michal Hocko,
	Linus Torvalds, X86 ML, Linux-MM, LKML

On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 12:23:46PM +0000, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 02:31:25PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > > Also, what does lvl == 0 mean?  Is it the top or the bottom?  I think a
> > > comment would be helpful.
> > 
> > It is bottom. But it should be up to architecture to decide.
> 
> That's not true because ...
> 
> > > > +static inline void ptp_walk(ptp_t *ptp, unsigned long addr)
> > > > +{
> > > > +       ptp->ptr = (unsigned long *)ptp_page_vaddr(ptp);
> > > > +       ptp->ptr += __pt_index(addr, --ptp->lvl);
> > > > +}
> > > 
> > > Can you add a comment that says what this function does?
> > 
> > Okay, I will.
> > 
> > > Why does it not change the level?
> > 
> > It does. --ptp->lvl.
> 
> ... you've hardcoded that walking down decrements the level by 1.
> 
> I don't see that as a defect; it's just part of the API that needs
> documenting.

You assume that the function is a generic one. This may or may not be
true.

This is subject for refinement anyway.

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API
  2018-05-07 11:31   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
  2018-05-07 12:23     ` Matthew Wilcox
@ 2018-05-08 21:04     ` Andy Lutomirski
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andy Lutomirski @ 2018-05-08 21:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Kirill A. Shutemov
  Cc: Kirill A. Shutemov, Andrew Morton, Michal Hocko, Linus Torvalds,
	X86 ML, Linux-MM, LKML



>> On May 7, 2018, at 4:31 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name> wrote:
>> 
>> On Mon, May 07, 2018 at 04:51:57AM +0000, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:44 AM Kirill A. Shutemov <
>> kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi everybody,
>> 
>>> I've proposed to talk about page able manipulation API on the LSF/MM'2018,
>>> so I need something material to talk about.
>> 
>> 
>> I gave it a quick read.  I like the concept a lot, and I have a few
>> comments.
> 
> Thank you for the input.
> 
>>> +/*
>>> + * How manu bottom level we account to mm->pgtables_bytes
>>> + */
>>> +#define PT_ACCOUNT_LVLS 3
>>> +
>>> +struct pt_ptr {
>>> +       unsigned long *ptr;
>>> +       int lvl;
>>> +};
>>> +
>> 
>> I think you've inherited something that I consider to be a defect in the
>> old code: you're conflating page *tables* with page table *entries*.  Your
>> 'struct pt_ptr' sounds like a pointer to an entire page table, but AFAICT
>> you're using it to point to a specific entry within a table.  I think that
>> both the new core code and the code that uses it would be clearer and less
>> error prone if you made the distinction explicit.  I can think of two clean
>> ways to do it:
>> 
>> 1. Add a struct pt_entry_ptr, and make it so that get_ptv(), etc take a
>> pt_entry_ptr instead of a pt_ptr.  Add a helper to find a pt_entry_ptr
>> given a pt_ptr and either an index or an address.
>> 
>> 2. Don't allow pointers to page table entries at all.  Instead, get_ptv()
>> would take an address or an index parameter.
> 
> Well, I'm not sure how useful pointer to whole page tables are.
> Where do you them useful?

Hmm, that’s a fair question. I guess that, in your patch, you pass around a ptv_t when you want to refer to a whole page table. That seems to work okay. Maybe still rename ptp_t to ptep_t or similar to emphasize that it points to an entry, not a table.

That being said, once you implement map/unmap for real, it might be more natural for map to return a pointer to a table rather than a pointer to an entry.

> 
>  In x86-64 case I pretend that CR3 is single-entry page table. It
>  requires a special threatement in ptp_page_vaddr(), but works fine
>  otherwise.
> 

Hmm. If you stick with that, it definitely needs better comments. Why do you need this, though?  What’s the benefit over simply starting with a pointer to the root table or a pointer to the first entry in the root table?  We certainly don’t want anyone to do ptp_set() on the fake CR3 entry.

> 
>> 
>>> +/*
>>> + * When walking page tables, get the address of the next boundary,
>>> + * or the end address of the range if that comes earlier.  Although no
>>> + * vma end wraps to 0, rounded up __boundary may wrap to 0 throughout.
>>> + */
>> 
>> I read this comment twice, and I still don't get it.  Can you clarify what
>> this function does and why you would use it?
> 
> That's basically ported variant of p?d_addr_end. It helps step address by
> right value for the page table entry and handles wrapping properly.
> 
> See example in copy_pt_range().

Ok

> 
>>> +/* Operations on page table pointers */
>>> +
>>> +/* Initialize ptp_t with pointer to top page table level. */
>>> +static inline ptp_t ptp_init(struct mm_struct *mm)
>>> +{
>>> +       struct pt_ptr ptp ={
>>> +               .ptr = (unsigned long *)mm->pgd,
>>> +               .lvl = PT_TOP_LEVEL,
>>> +       };
>>> +
>>> +       return ptp;
>>> +}
>>> +
>> 
>> On some architectures, there are multiple page table roots.  For example,
>> ARM64 has a root for the kernel half of the address space and a root for
>> the user half (at least -- I don't fully understand it).  x86 PAE sort-of
>> has four roots.  Would it make sense to expose this in the API for
>> real?
> 
> I will give it a thought.
> 
> Is there a reason not to threat it as an additional page table layer and
> deal with it in a unified way?

I was thinking that it would be more confusing to treat it as one table. After all, it doesn’t exist in memory. Also, if anyone ever makes the top half be per-cpu and the bottom half be per-mm (which would be awesome if x86 had hardware support, hint hint), then pretending that it’s one table gets even weirder.  The code that emulates it as a table would have to know what mm *and* what CPU it is faking.

> 
> 
>>> +static inline void ptp_walk(ptp_t *ptp, unsigned long addr)
>>> +{
>>> +       ptp->ptr = (unsigned long *)ptp_page_vaddr(ptp);
>>> +       ptp->ptr += __pt_index(addr, --ptp->lvl);
>>> +}
>> 
>> Can you add a comment that says what this function does?
> 
> Okay, I will.
> 
>> Why does it not change the level?
> 
> It does. --ptp->lvl.

Hmm.

Maybe change this to ptp_t ptp_walk(ptp_t ptp, unsigned long addr)?  It’s less error prone and should generate identical code.

> 
>>> +
>>> +static void ptp_free(struct mm_struct *mm, ptv_t ptv)
>>> +{
>>> +       if (ptv.lvl < PT_SPLIT_LOCK_LVLS)
>>> +               ptlock_free(pfn_to_page(ptv_pfn(ptv)));
>>> +}
>>> +
>> 
>> As it stands, this is a function that seems easy easy to misuse given the
>> confusion between page tables and page table entries.
> 
> Hm. I probably have a blind spot, but I don't see it.
> 

Hmm, I guess you’re right - it takes a ptv_t.

>> Finally, a general comment.  Actually fully implementing this the way
>> you've done it seems like a giant mess given that you need to support all
>> architectures.  But couldn't you implement the new API as a wrapper around
>> the old API so you automatically get all architectures?
> 
> I will look into this. But I'm not sure if it possbile without measurable
> overhead.
> 

So what?  Make x86 fast and everything else slow but correct. POWER, ARM64, and s390 will make themes fast. Everyone else can, too, if they care.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2018-05-08 21:04 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2018-04-24 15:43 Proof-of-concept: better(?) page-table manipulation API Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-05-04 21:12 ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-05-04 21:49   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-05-07  4:51 ` Andy Lutomirski
2018-05-07 11:31   ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-05-07 12:23     ` Matthew Wilcox
2018-05-07 13:10       ` Kirill A. Shutemov
2018-05-08 21:04     ` Andy Lutomirski

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).