[PATCH v6 07/26] mm: Preserve the PG_arch_* flags in __split_huge_page_tail()

[Catalin Marinas]

On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 07:56:43PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 06.07.20 18:30, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 06, 2020 at 04:16:13PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >> On 03.07.20 17:36, Catalin Marinas wrote:
> >>> When a huge page is split into normal pages, part of the head page flags
> >>> are transferred to the tail pages. However, the PG_arch_* flags are not
> >>> part of the preserved set.
> >>>
> >>> PG_arch_1 is currently used by the arch code to handle cache maintenance
> >>> for user space (either for I-D cache coherency or for D-cache aliases
> >>> consistent with the kernel mapping). Since splitting a huge page does
> >>> not change the physical or virtual address of a mapping, additional
> >>> cache maintenance for the tail pages is unnecessary. Preserving the
> >>> PG_arch_1 flag from the head page in the tail pages would not break the
> >>> current use-cases.
> >>
> >> ^ is fairly arm64 specific, no? (I remember that the semantics are
> >> different e.g., on s390x).
> > 
> > Not entirely arm64 specific. Apart from s390 and x86, I think all the
> > other architectures use this flag for cache maintenance (I guess they
> > followed the cachetlb.rst suggestion). My understanding of the s390 and
> > x86 is that transferring this flag from the head of a compound page to
> > the tail pages should not cause any issue. We don't even document
> > anywhere that this flag is meant to disappear on huge page splitting. I
> > guess no-one noticed because clearing it is relatively benign.
> 
> On s390x, PG_arch_1 indicates (s390/kernel/uv.c:arch_make_page_accessible())
> - kernel page tables
> - for hugetlbfs pages, that storage keys are initialized for that page
>   (IIRC KVM only)
> - a user space page might be encrypted/secure (KVM only)
> 
> The latter does not support hugetlbfs/THP. KVM does not support THP. So
> on s390x the bit should never be set in that context and, therefore,
> also won't be affected by this change.

Thanks for checking.

> > But if there are concerns, I'm happy to guard it with something like
> > __ARCH_WANT_PG_ARCH_HEAD_TAIL (I need to think of a more suggestive
> > name).
> 
> I guess we can avoid that if we properly check+document all users.
> (ignoring x86 and s390x behavior here might be dangerous, although my
> gut feeling is that it's ok for both)

I'll post an independent patch for PG_arch_1 to get consensus among
architectures. The PG_arch_2 introduced by the MTE patches can have the
new behaviour since it would only be used by arm64 initially.

-- 
Catalin