[PATCH v2 07/13] mm/debug_vm_pgtable/set_pte/pmd/pud: Don't use set_*_at to update an existing pte entry

[Anshuman Khandual]

On 08/21/2020 12:44 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> On 8/20/20 8:02 PM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 19/08/2020 à 15:01, Aneesh Kumar K.V a écrit :
>>> set_pte_at() should not be used to set a pte entry at locations that
>>> already holds a valid pte entry. Architectures like ppc64 don't do TLB
>>> invalidate in set_pte_at() and hence expect it to be used to set locations
>>> that are not a valid PTE.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar at linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>>   mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c | 35 +++++++++++++++--------------------
>>>   1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c b/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
>>> index 76f4c713e5a3..9c7e2c9cfc76 100644
>>> --- a/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
>>> +++ b/mm/debug_vm_pgtable.c
>>> @@ -74,15 +74,18 @@ static void __init pte_advanced_tests(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>   {
>>>       pte_t pte = pfn_pte(pfn, prot);
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * Architectures optimize set_pte_at by avoiding TLB flush.
>>> +     * This requires set_pte_at to be not used to update an
>>> +     * existing pte entry. Clear pte before we do set_pte_at
>>> +     */
>>> +
>>>       pr_debug("Validating PTE advanced\n");
>>>       pte = pfn_pte(pfn, prot);
>>>       set_pte_at(mm, vaddr, ptep, pte);
>>>       ptep_set_wrprotect(mm, vaddr, ptep);
>>>       pte = ptep_get(ptep);
>>>       WARN_ON(pte_write(pte));
>>> -
>>> -    pte = pfn_pte(pfn, prot);
>>> -    set_pte_at(mm, vaddr, ptep, pte);
>>>       ptep_get_and_clear(mm, vaddr, ptep);
>>>       pte = ptep_get(ptep);
>>>       WARN_ON(!pte_none(pte));
>>> @@ -96,13 +99,11 @@ static void __init pte_advanced_tests(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>       ptep_set_access_flags(vma, vaddr, ptep, pte, 1);
>>>       pte = ptep_get(ptep);
>>>       WARN_ON(!(pte_write(pte) && pte_dirty(pte)));
>>> -
>>> -    pte = pfn_pte(pfn, prot);
>>> -    set_pte_at(mm, vaddr, ptep, pte);
>>>       ptep_get_and_clear_full(mm, vaddr, ptep, 1);
>>>       pte = ptep_get(ptep);
>>>       WARN_ON(!pte_none(pte));
>>> +    pte = pfn_pte(pfn, prot);
>>>       pte = pte_mkyoung(pte);
>>>       set_pte_at(mm, vaddr, ptep, pte);
>>>       ptep_test_and_clear_young(vma, vaddr, ptep);
>>> @@ -164,9 +165,6 @@ static void __init pmd_advanced_tests(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>       pmdp_set_wrprotect(mm, vaddr, pmdp);
>>>       pmd = READ_ONCE(*pmdp);
>>>       WARN_ON(pmd_write(pmd));
>>> -
>>> -    pmd = pmd_mkhuge(pfn_pmd(pfn, prot));
>>> -    set_pmd_at(mm, vaddr, pmdp, pmd);
>>>       pmdp_huge_get_and_clear(mm, vaddr, pmdp);
>>>       pmd = READ_ONCE(*pmdp);
>>>       WARN_ON(!pmd_none(pmd));
>>> @@ -180,13 +178,11 @@ static void __init pmd_advanced_tests(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>       pmdp_set_access_flags(vma, vaddr, pmdp, pmd, 1);
>>>       pmd = READ_ONCE(*pmdp);
>>>       WARN_ON(!(pmd_write(pmd) && pmd_dirty(pmd)));
>>> -
>>> -    pmd = pmd_mkhuge(pfn_pmd(pfn, prot));
>>> -    set_pmd_at(mm, vaddr, pmdp, pmd);
>>>       pmdp_huge_get_and_clear_full(vma, vaddr, pmdp, 1);
>>>       pmd = READ_ONCE(*pmdp);
>>>       WARN_ON(!pmd_none(pmd));
>>> +    pmd = pmd_mkhuge(pfn_pmd(pfn, prot));
>>>       pmd = pmd_mkyoung(pmd);
>>>       set_pmd_at(mm, vaddr, pmdp, pmd);
>>>       pmdp_test_and_clear_young(vma, vaddr, pmdp);
>>> @@ -283,18 +279,10 @@ static void __init pud_advanced_tests(struct mm_struct *mm,
>>>       WARN_ON(pud_write(pud));
>>>   #ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED
>>
>> Same as below, once set_put_at() is gone, I don't think this #ifndef __PAGETABLE_PMD_FOLDED is still need, should be possible to replace by 'if (mm_pmd_folded())'
> 
> I would skip that change in this series because I still haven't worked out what it means to have FOLDED PMD with CONFIG_HAVE_ARCH_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_PUD.
> 
> 
> We should probably push that as a cleanup later and somebody who can test that config can do that? Currently i can't boot ppc64 with DBUG_VM_PGTABLE enabled on ppc64 because it is all buggy w.r.t rules.

Agreed. I think its OK not address these changes/improvements in this particular
series which is trying to modify the test to make it run on ppc64 platform. I will
probably look into that later.