mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>, Joey Gouly <joey.gouly@arm.com>,
	Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@arm.com>,
	Anshuman Khandual <anshuman.khandual@arm.com>,
	Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
	Shivansh Vij <shivanshvij@outlook.com>
Cc: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 1/2] arm64/mm: Move PTE_PROT_NONE and PMD_PRESENT_INVALID
Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2024 11:29:07 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <df0475e1-9078-4629-b23d-0919ab1e37c2@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <b55558a5-a9d4-4aea-956a-1babad01b6cd@redhat.com>

On 25/04/2024 10:16, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.04.24 13:10, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> Previously PTE_PROT_NONE was occupying bit 58, one of the bits reserved
>> for SW use when the PTE is valid. This is a waste of those precious SW
>> bits since PTE_PROT_NONE can only ever be set when valid is clear.
>> Instead let's overlay it on what would be a HW bit if valid was set.
>>
>> We need to be careful about which HW bit to choose since some of them
>> must be preserved; when pte_present() is true (as it is for a
>> PTE_PROT_NONE pte), it is legitimate for the core to call various
>> accessors, e.g. pte_dirty(), pte_write() etc. There are also some
>> accessors that are private to the arch which must continue to be
>> honoured, e.g. pte_user(), pte_user_exec() etc.
>>
>> So we choose to overlay PTE_UXN; This effectively means that whenever a
>> pte has PTE_PROT_NONE set, it will always report pte_user_exec() ==
>> false, which is obviously always correct.
>>
>> As a result of this change, we must shuffle the layout of the
>> arch-specific swap pte so that PTE_PROT_NONE is always zero and not
>> overlapping with any other field. As a result of this, there is no way
>> to keep the `type` field contiguous without conflicting with
>> PMD_PRESENT_INVALID (bit 59), which must also be 0 for a swap pte. So
>> let's move PMD_PRESENT_INVALID to bit 60.
> 
> A note that some archs split/re-combine type and/or offset, to make use of every
> bit possible :) But that's mostly relevant for 32bit.
> 
> (and as long as PFNs can still fit into the swp offset for migration entries etc.)

Yeah, I considered splitting the type or offset field to avoid moving
PMD_PRESENT_INVALID, but thought it was better to avoid the extra mask and shift.

> 
>>
>> In the end, this frees up bit 58 for future use as a proper SW bit (e.g.
>> soft-dirty or uffd-wp).
> 
> I was briefly confused about how you would use these bits as SW bits for swap
> PTEs (which you can't as they overlay the type). See below regarding bit 3.
> 
> I would have said here "proper SW bit for present PTEs".

Yes; I'll clarify in the next version.

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@arm.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h |  4 ++--
>>   arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h      | 16 +++++++++-------
>>   2 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
>> b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
>> index dd9ee67d1d87..ef952d69fd04 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable-prot.h
>> @@ -18,14 +18,14 @@
>>   #define PTE_DIRTY        (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 55)
>>   #define PTE_SPECIAL        (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 56)
>>   #define PTE_DEVMAP        (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 57)
>> -#define PTE_PROT_NONE        (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 58) /* only when !PTE_VALID */
>> +#define PTE_PROT_NONE        (PTE_UXN)         /* Reuse PTE_UXN; only when
>> !PTE_VALID */
>>     /*
>>    * This bit indicates that the entry is present i.e. pmd_page()
>>    * still points to a valid huge page in memory even if the pmd
>>    * has been invalidated.
>>    */
>> -#define PMD_PRESENT_INVALID    (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 59) /* only when
>> !PMD_SECT_VALID */
>> +#define PMD_PRESENT_INVALID    (_AT(pteval_t, 1) << 60) /* only when
>> !PMD_SECT_VALID */
>>     #define _PROT_DEFAULT        (PTE_TYPE_PAGE | PTE_AF | PTE_SHARED)
>>   #define _PROT_SECT_DEFAULT    (PMD_TYPE_SECT | PMD_SECT_AF | PMD_SECT_S)
>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> index afdd56d26ad7..23aabff4fa6f 100644
>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/pgtable.h
>> @@ -1248,20 +1248,22 @@ static inline pmd_t pmdp_establish(struct
>> vm_area_struct *vma,
>>    * Encode and decode a swap entry:
>>    *    bits 0-1:    present (must be zero)
>>    *    bits 2:        remember PG_anon_exclusive
>> - *    bits 3-7:    swap type
>> - *    bits 8-57:    swap offset
>> - *    bit  58:    PTE_PROT_NONE (must be zero)
> 
> Reading this patch alone: what happened to bit 3? Please mention that that it
> will be used as a swap pte metadata bit (uffd-wp).

Will do. It's all a bit arbitrary though. I could have put offset in 3-52, and
then 53 would have been spare for uffd-wp. I'm not sure there is any advantage
to either option.

> 
>> + *    bits 4-53:    swap offset
> 
> So we'll still have 50bit for the offset, good. We could even use 61-63 if ever
> required to store bigger PFNs.

yep, or more sw bits.

> 
> LGTM
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>

Thanks!



  reply	other threads:[~2024-04-25 10:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-04-24 11:10 [PATCH v1 0/2] arm64/mm: Enable userfaultfd write-protect Ryan Roberts
2024-04-24 11:10 ` [PATCH v1 1/2] arm64/mm: Move PTE_PROT_NONE and PMD_PRESENT_INVALID Ryan Roberts
2024-04-24 16:43   ` Catalin Marinas
2024-04-25  8:40     ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-25  9:16   ` David Hildenbrand
2024-04-25 10:29     ` Ryan Roberts [this message]
2024-04-25 10:37       ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-26 14:48         ` Catalin Marinas
2024-04-29 10:04           ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-29 12:38             ` Catalin Marinas
2024-04-29 13:01               ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-29 13:23                 ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-29 14:18                   ` Catalin Marinas
2024-04-29 15:04                     ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-24 11:10 ` [PATCH v1 2/2] arm64/mm: Add uffd write-protect support Ryan Roberts
2024-04-24 11:57   ` Peter Xu
2024-04-24 12:51     ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-26 13:17     ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-26 13:54       ` Peter Xu
2024-04-29  9:39         ` Ryan Roberts
2024-04-24 16:46   ` Catalin Marinas

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=df0475e1-9078-4629-b23d-0919ab1e37c2@arm.com \
    --to=ryan.roberts@arm.com \
    --cc=anshuman.khandual@arm.com \
    --cc=ardb@kernel.org \
    --cc=catalin.marinas@arm.com \
    --cc=david@redhat.com \
    --cc=joey.gouly@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.rutland@arm.com \
    --cc=peterx@redhat.com \
    --cc=rppt@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=shivanshvij@outlook.com \
    --cc=will@kernel.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox

all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®