[PATCH 4/6] mm: proc: Invalidate TLB after clearing soft-dirty page state

[Will Deacon]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 07:55:14AM -0800, Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 04:00:23PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2020 at 02:35:55PM +0000, Will Deacon wrote:
> > > Since commit 0758cd830494 ("asm-generic/tlb: avoid potential double flush"),
> > > TLB invalidation is elided in tlb_finish_mmu() if no entries were batched
> > > via the tlb_remove_*() functions. Consequently, the page-table modifications
> > > performed by clear_refs_write() in response to a write to
> > > /proc/<pid>/clear_refs do not perform TLB invalidation. Although this is
> > > fine when simply aging the ptes, in the case of clearing the "soft-dirty"
> > > state we can end up with entries where pte_write() is false, yet a
> > > writable mapping remains in the TLB.
> > > 
> > > Fix this by calling tlb_remove_tlb_entry() for each entry being
> > > write-protected when cleating soft-dirty.
> > > 
> > 
> > > @@ -1053,6 +1054,7 @@ static inline void clear_soft_dirty(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > >  		ptent = pte_wrprotect(old_pte);
> > >  		ptent = pte_clear_soft_dirty(ptent);
> > >  		ptep_modify_prot_commit(vma, addr, pte, old_pte, ptent);
> > > +		tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, pte, addr);
> > >  	} else if (is_swap_pte(ptent)) {
> > >  		ptent = pte_swp_clear_soft_dirty(ptent);
> > >  		set_pte_at(vma->vm_mm, addr, pte, ptent);
> > 
> > Oh!
> > 
> > Yesterday when you had me look at this code; I figured the sane thing
> > to do was to make it look more like mprotect().
> > 
> > Why did you chose to make it work with mmu_gather instead? I'll grant
> > you that it's probably the smaller patch, but I still think it's weird
> > to use mmu_gather here.
> 
> I agree. The reason why clear_refs_write used the gather API was [1] and
> seems like to overkill to me.

I don't see why it's overkill. Prior to that commit, it called
flush_tlb_mm() directly.

> We could just do like [inc|dec]_tlb_flush_pending with flush_tlb_mm at
> right before dec_tlb_flush_pending instead of gather.
> 
> thought?

I'm not sure why this is better; it's different to the madvise() path, and
will need special logic to avoid the flush in the case where we're just
doing aging.

Will

> [1] b3a81d0841a95, mm: fix KSM data corruption