[PATCH v3 2/5] mm: Add batched versions of ptep_modify_prot_start/commit

[Ryan Roberts]

On 21/05/2025 12:16, Ryan Roberts wrote:
> On 19/05/2025 08:48, Dev Jain wrote:
>> Batch ptep_modify_prot_start/commit in preparation for optimizing mprotect.
>> Architecture can override these helpers; in case not, they are implemented
>> as a simple loop over the corresponding single pte helpers.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dev Jain <dev.jain at arm.com>

[...]

> 
> I have some general concerns about the correctness of batching these functions.
> The support was originally added by Commit 1ea0704e0da6 ("mm: add a
> ptep_modify_prot transaction abstraction"), and the intent was to make it easier
> to defer the pte updates for XEN on x86.
> 
> Your default implementations of the batched versions will match the number of
> ptep_modify_prot_start() calls with the same number of ptep_modify_prot_commit()
> calls, even if modify_prot_commit_ptes() is called incrementally for sub-batches
> of the batch used for modify_prot_start_ptes(). That's a requirement and you've
> met it. But in the batched case, there are 2 differences;
> 
>   - You can now have multiple PTEs within a start-commit block at one time. I
> hope none of the specialized implementations care about that (i.e. XEN).

I had a look; this isn't a problem.

> 
>   - when calling ptep_modify_prot_commit(), old_pte may not be exactly what
> ptep_modify_prot_start() returned for that pte. You have collected the A/D bits,
> and according to your docs "PTE bits in the PTE range besides the PFN can
> differ" when calling modify_prot_start_ptes() so R/W and other things could
> differ here.

It looks like powerpc will break if you provide old_pte which has different
permissions to the "real" old_pte, see radix__ptep_modify_prot_commit(). So I
think you need to at least spec modify_prot_start_ptes() to require that all
bits of the PTE except the PFN, access and dirty are identical. And perhaps you
can VM_WARN if found to be otherwise? And perhaps modify
ptep_modify_prot_commit()'s documentation to explcitly allow old_pte's
access/dirty to be "upgraded" from what was actually read in
ptep_modify_prot_start()?

XEN/x86 and arm64 don't care about old_pte.

Thanks,
Ryan

> 
> I'm not sure if these are problems in practice; they probably are not. But have
> you checked the XEN implementation (and any other specialized implementations)
> are definitely compatible with your batched semantics?
>