Re: Regression: x86/mm: new _PTE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY bit conflicts with existing use

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

Only WB pages should be swappable, but even so, the cacheability should be in the vma.

Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 21.08.13 at 16:12, Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 21, 2013 at 02:48:20PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
>>> All,
>>> 
>>> 179ef71c (mm: save soft-dirty bits on swapped pages) introduces a
>new
>>> PTE bit on x86 _PTE_SWP_SOFT_DIRTY which has the same value as
>_PTE_PSE
>>> and _PTE_PAT.
>>> 
>>> With a Xen PV guest, the use of the _PTE_PAT will result in the page
>>> having unexpected cachability which will introduce a range of subtle
>>> performance and correctness issues.  Xen programs the entry 4 in the
>PAT
>>> table with WC so a page that was previously WB will end up as WC.
>>> 
>> 
>> David, could you please explain, Xen keeps and analyze _PTE_PAT bit
>> for ptes which are not present?
>
>No, the problem isn't with not-present PTEs (i.e. swap entries),
>but with present ones - the same bit (7) is being used for both,
>according to this comment:
>
>/*
> * Tracking soft dirty bit when a page goes to a swap is tricky.
> * We need a bit which can be stored in pte _and_ not conflict
> * with swap entry format. On x86 bits 6 and 7 are *not* involved
> * into swap entry computation, but bit 6 is used for nonlinear
> * file mapping, so we borrow bit 7 for soft dirty tracking.
> */
>
>Or are you telling me that the comment is misleading (at least me),
>and this applies only to not-present PTEs? And even then - where
>would the value of the original PAT bit be stored while swapped
>out (or is it impossible - now and forever - for WC pages to get
>swapped)?
>
>Jan

-- 
Sent from my mobile phone. Please excuse brevity and lack of formatting.