[PATCH v13 4/5] arm64: support copy_mc_[user]_highpage()

[Tong Tiangen]

Hi,Catalin:

Kindly ping ...

Thanks.:)

在 2025/2/19 3:42, Catalin Marinas 写道:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2025 at 07:51:10PM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>>>>>> 在 2025/2/13 1:11, Catalin Marinas 写道:
>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 09, 2024 at 10:42:56AM +0800, Tong Tiangen wrote:
>>>>>>>> Currently, many scenarios that can tolerate memory errors when copying page
>>>>>>>> have been supported in the kernel[1~5], all of which are implemented by
>>>>>>>> copy_mc_[user]_highpage(). arm64 should also support this mechanism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Due to mte, arm64 needs to have its own copy_mc_[user]_highpage()
>>>>>>>> architecture implementation, macros __HAVE_ARCH_COPY_MC_HIGHPAGE and
>>>>>>>> __HAVE_ARCH_COPY_MC_USER_HIGHPAGE have been added to control it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Add new helper copy_mc_page() which provide a page copy implementation with
>>>>>>>> hardware memory error safe. The code logic of copy_mc_page() is the same as
>>>>>>>> copy_page(), the main difference is that the ldp insn of copy_mc_page()
>>>>>>>> contains the fixup type EX_TYPE_KACCESS_ERR_ZERO_MEM_ERR, therefore, the
>>>>>>>> main logic is extracted to copy_page_template.S. In addition, the fixup of
>>>>>>>> MOPS insn is not considered at present.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could we not add the exception table entry permanently but ignore the
>>>>>>> exception table entry if it's not on the do_sea() path? That would save
>>>>>>> some code duplication.
> [...]
>> So we need another way to distinguish the different processing of the
>> same exception type on SEA and non-SEA path.
> 
> Distinguishing whether the fault is SEA or non-SEA is already done by
> the exception handling you are adding. What we don't have though is
> information about whether the caller invoked copy_highpage() or
> copy_mc_highpage(). That's where the code duplication comes in handy.
> 
> It's a shame we need to duplicate identical functions just to have
> different addresses to look up in the exception table. We are also short
> of caller saved registers to track this information (e.g. an extra
> argument to those functions that the exception handler interprets).
> 
> I need to think a bit more, we could in theory get the arm64 memcpy_mc()
> to return an error code depending on what type of fault it got (e.g.
> -EHWPOISON for SEA, -EFAULT for non-SEA). copy_mc_highpage() would
> interpret this one and panic if -EFAULT. But we lose some fault details
> we normally get on a faulty access like some of the registers.
> 
> Well, maybe the simples is still to keep the function duplication. I'll
> have another look at the series tomorrow.
>