[PATCH v4 10/15] riscv: pgtable: move pagetable_dtor() to __tlb_remove_table()

[Qi Zheng]

Hi Kevin,

On 2025/1/3 21:27, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
> On 03/01/2025 10:35, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> On 2025/1/3 17:13, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>> On 2025/1/3 16:02, Kevin Brodsky wrote:
>>>> On 03/01/2025 04:48, Qi Zheng wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>> In __tlb_batch_free_encoded_pages(), we can indeed detect PageTable()
>>>>> and call pagetable_dtor() to dtor the page table pages.
>>>>> But __tlb_batch_free_encoded_pages() is also used to free normal pages
>>>>> (not page table pages), so I don't want to add overhead there.
>>>>
>>>> Interesting, can a tlb batch refer to pages than are not PTPs then?
>>>
>>> Yes, you can see the caller of __tlb_remove_folio_pages() or
>>> tlb_remove_page_size().
> 
> I had a brief look but clearly not a good enough one! I hadn't realised
> that "table" in tlb_remove_table() means PTP, while "page" in
> tlb_remove_page() can mean any page, and it's making more sense now.
> 
> [...]
> 
>>>
>>> For arm, the call to pagetable_dtor() is indeed missed in the
>>> non-MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE case. This needs to be fixed. But we
>>> can't fix this by adding pagetable_dtor() to tlb_remove_table(),
>>> because some architectures call tlb_remove_table() but don't support
>>> page table statistics, like sparc.
> 
> When I investigated this for my own series, I found that the only case
> where ctor/dtor are not called for page-sized page tables is 32-bit
> sparc (see table at the end of [1]). However only 64-bit sparc makes use
> of tlb_remove_table() (at PTE level, where ctor/dtor are already called).

Thanks for providing this information.

> 
> So really calling pagetable_dtor() from tlb_remove_table() in the
> non-MMU_GATHER_TABLE_FREE case seems to be the obvious thing to do.

Right. Currently, only powerpc, sparc and x86 will directly call
tlb_remove_table(), and all of them are in the MMU_GATHER_TABLE_FREE
case. Therefore, I think the modification you mentioned below is
feasible.

In summary, currently only arm calls tlb_remove_table() in the
non-MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE case. So I think we can add this fix
directly to patch #8. If I haven't missed anything, I'll send an
updated patch #8.

> 
> Once this is done, we should be able to replace all those confusing
> calls to tlb_remove_page() on PTPs with tlb_remove_table() and remove
> the explicit call to pagetable_dtor(). AIUI this is essentially what
> Peter suggested on v3 [2].

Since this patch series is mainly for bug fix, I think that these things
can be done in separate patch series later.

> 
> [1]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20241219164425.2277022-1-kevin.brodsky@arm.com/
> [2]
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20250103111457.GC22934@noisy.programming.kicks-ass.net/
> 
> [...]
> 
>> Or can we just not let tlb_remove_table() fall back to
>> tlb_remove_page()? Like the following:
>>
>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
>> index a59205863f431..354ffaa4bd120 100644
>> --- a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
>> @@ -195,8 +195,6 @@
>>    *  various ptep_get_and_clear() functions.
>>    */
>>
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_TABLE_FREE
>> -
>>   struct mmu_table_batch {
>>   #ifdef CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_RCU_TABLE_FREE
>>          struct rcu_head         rcu;
>> @@ -219,16 +217,6 @@ static inline void __tlb_remove_table(void *table)
>>
>>   extern void tlb_remove_table(struct mmu_gather *tlb, void *table);
>>
>> -#else /* !CONFIG_MMU_GATHER_HAVE_TABLE_FREE */
>> -
>> -/*
>> - * Without MMU_GATHER_TABLE_FREE the architecture is assumed to have
>> page based
>> - * page directories and we can use the normal page batching to free
>> them.
>> - */
>> -#define tlb_remove_table(tlb, page) tlb_remove_page((tlb), (page))
> 
> We still need a different implementation of tlb_remove_table() in this
> case. We could define it inline here:
> 
> static inline void tlb_remove_table(struct mmu_gather *tlb, void *table)
> {
>      struct page *page = table;
> 
>      pagetable_dtor(page_ptdesc(page));
>      tlb_remove_page(page);
> }

Right. As I said above, will add this to the updated patch #8.

Thanks!

> 
> - Kevin