Re: [RFC PATCH 01/14] userfaultfd: set dirty and young on writeprotect

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 19.07.22 22:47, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 05:01:59AM -0700, Nadav Amit wrote:
>> From: Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>
>>
>> When userfaultfd makes a PTE writable, it can now change the PTE
>> directly, in some cases, without going triggering a page-fault first.
>> Yet, doing so might leave the PTE that was write-unprotected as old and
>> clean. At least on x86, this would cause a >500 cycles overhead when the
>> PTE is first accessed.
>>
>> Use MM_CP_WILL_NEED to set the PTE as young and dirty when userfaultfd
>> gets a hint that the page is likely to be used. Avoid changing the PTE
>> to young and dirty in other cases to avoid excessive writeback and
>> messing with the page reclamation logic.
>>
>> Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>
>> Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
>> Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>
>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> Cc: Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>
>> Cc: Yu Zhao <yuzhao@google.com>
>> Cc: Nick Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
>> ---
>>  include/linux/mm.h | 2 ++
>>  mm/mprotect.c      | 9 ++++++++-
>>  mm/userfaultfd.c   | 8 ++++++--
>>  3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
>> index 9cc02a7e503b..4afd75ce5875 100644
>> --- a/include/linux/mm.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
>> @@ -1988,6 +1988,8 @@ extern unsigned long move_page_tables(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>  /* Whether this change is for write protecting */
>>  #define  MM_CP_UFFD_WP                     (1UL << 2) /* do wp */
>>  #define  MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE             (1UL << 3) /* Resolve wp */
>> +/* Whether to try to mark entries as dirty as they are to be written */
>> +#define  MM_CP_WILL_NEED		   (1UL << 4)
>>  #define  MM_CP_UFFD_WP_ALL                 (MM_CP_UFFD_WP | \
>>  					    MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE)
>>  
>> diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
>> index 996a97e213ad..34c2dfb68c42 100644
>> --- a/mm/mprotect.c
>> +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
>> @@ -82,6 +82,7 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>  	bool prot_numa = cp_flags & MM_CP_PROT_NUMA;
>>  	bool uffd_wp = cp_flags & MM_CP_UFFD_WP;
>>  	bool uffd_wp_resolve = cp_flags & MM_CP_UFFD_WP_RESOLVE;
>> +	bool will_need = cp_flags & MM_CP_WILL_NEED;
>>  
>>  	tlb_change_page_size(tlb, PAGE_SIZE);
>>  
>> @@ -172,6 +173,9 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>  				ptent = pte_clear_uffd_wp(ptent);
>>  			}
>>  
>> +			if (will_need)
>> +				ptent = pte_mkyoung(ptent);
> 
> For uffd path, UFFD_FLAGS_ACCESS_LIKELY|UFFD_FLAGS_WRITE_LIKELY are new
> internal flags used with or without the new feature bit set.  It means even
> with !ACCESS_HINT we'll start to set young bit while we used not to?  Is
> that some kind of a light abi change?
> 
> I'd suggest we only set will_need if ACCESS_HINT is set.
> 
>> +
>>  			/*
>>  			 * In some writable, shared mappings, we might want
>>  			 * to catch actual write access -- see
>> @@ -187,8 +191,11 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>  			 */
>>  			if ((cp_flags & MM_CP_TRY_CHANGE_WRITABLE) &&
>>  			    !pte_write(ptent) &&
>> -			    can_change_pte_writable(vma, addr, ptent))
>> +			    can_change_pte_writable(vma, addr, ptent)) {
>>  				ptent = pte_mkwrite(ptent);
>> +				if (will_need)
>> +					ptent = pte_mkdirty(ptent);
> 
> Can we make this unconditional?  IOW to cover both:
> 
>   (1) When will_need is not set, or
>   (2) mprotect() too
> 
> David's patch is good in that we merged the unprotect and CoW.  However
> that's not complete because the dirty bit ops are missing.
> 
> Here IMHO we should have a standalone patch to just add the dirty bit into
> this logic when we'll grant write bit.  IMHO it'll make the write+dirty
> bits coherent again in all paths.

I'm not sure I follow.

We *surely* don't want to dirty random pages (especially once in the
pagecache/swapcache) simply because we change protection.

Just like we don't set all pages write+dirty in a writable VMA on a read
fault.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb