diff mbox series

[v2,5/7] riscv: mm: accelerate pagefault when badaccess

Message ID 20240403083805.1818160-6-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com (mailing list archive)
State Needs ACK
Headers show
Series arch/mm/fault: accelerate pagefault when badaccess | expand

Checks

Context Check Description
conchuod/vmtest-for-next-PR success PR summary
conchuod/patch-5-test-1 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/build_rv32_defconfig.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-2 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/build_rv64_clang_allmodconfig.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-3 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/build_rv64_gcc_allmodconfig.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-4 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/build_rv64_nommu_k210_defconfig.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-5 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/build_rv64_nommu_virt_defconfig.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-6 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/checkpatch.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-7 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/dtb_warn_rv64.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-8 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/header_inline.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-9 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/kdoc.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-10 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/module_param.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-11 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/verify_fixes.sh
conchuod/patch-5-test-12 success .github/scripts/patches/tests/verify_signedoff.sh

Commit Message

Kefeng Wang April 3, 2024, 8:38 a.m. UTC
The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
is a bad access, directly handle error, no need to retry with mmap_lock
again. Since the page faut is handled under per-VMA lock, count it as
a vma lock event with VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS.

Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
---
 arch/riscv/mm/fault.c | 5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Alexandre Ghiti April 10, 2024, 7:32 a.m. UTC | #1
Hi Kefeng,

On 03/04/2024 10:38, Kefeng Wang wrote:
> The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
> is a bad access, directly handle error, no need to retry with mmap_lock
> again. Since the page faut is handled under per-VMA lock, count it as
> a vma lock event with VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS.
>
> Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
> ---
>   arch/riscv/mm/fault.c | 5 ++++-
>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
> index 3ba1d4dde5dd..b3fcf7d67efb 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
> @@ -292,7 +292,10 @@ void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
>   
>   	if (unlikely(access_error(cause, vma))) {
>   		vma_end_read(vma);
> -		goto lock_mmap;
> +		count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
> +		tsk->thread.bad_cause = SEGV_ACCERR;


I think we should use the cause variable here instead of SEGV_ACCERR, as 
bad_cause is a riscv internal status which describes the real fault that 
happened.

Thanks,

Alex


> +		bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, code, addr);
> +		return;
>   	}
>   
>   	fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, flags | FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK, regs);
Kefeng Wang April 10, 2024, 8:07 a.m. UTC | #2
On 2024/4/10 15:32, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> Hi Kefeng,
> 
> On 03/04/2024 10:38, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>> The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
>> is a bad access, directly handle error, no need to retry with mmap_lock
>> again. Since the page faut is handled under per-VMA lock, count it as
>> a vma lock event with VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>> ---
>>   arch/riscv/mm/fault.c | 5 ++++-
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>> index 3ba1d4dde5dd..b3fcf7d67efb 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>> @@ -292,7 +292,10 @@ void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>       if (unlikely(access_error(cause, vma))) {
>>           vma_end_read(vma);
>> -        goto lock_mmap;
>> +        count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
>> +        tsk->thread.bad_cause = SEGV_ACCERR;
> 
> 
> I think we should use the cause variable here instead of SEGV_ACCERR, as 
> bad_cause is a riscv internal status which describes the real fault that 
> happened.

Oh, I see, it is exception causes on riscv, so it should be

diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
index b3fcf7d67efb..5224f3733802 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
@@ -293,8 +293,8 @@ void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
         if (unlikely(access_error(cause, vma))) {
                 vma_end_read(vma);
                 count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
-               tsk->thread.bad_cause = SEGV_ACCERR;
-               bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, code, addr);
+               tsk->thread.bad_cause = cause;
+               bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, SEGV_ACCERR, addr);
                 return;
         }

Hi Alex, could you help to check it?

Hi Andrew, please help to squash it after Alex ack it.

Thanks both.


> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
>> +        bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, code, addr);
>> +        return;
>>       }
>>       fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, flags | FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK, 
>> regs);
Alexandre Ghiti April 10, 2024, 5:28 p.m. UTC | #3
On 10/04/2024 10:07, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>
>
> On 2024/4/10 15:32, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>> Hi Kefeng,
>>
>> On 03/04/2024 10:38, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>> The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
>>> is a bad access, directly handle error, no need to retry with mmap_lock
>>> again. Since the page faut is handled under per-VMA lock, count it as
>>> a vma lock event with VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS.
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>>> ---
>>>   arch/riscv/mm/fault.c | 5 ++++-
>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>>> index 3ba1d4dde5dd..b3fcf7d67efb 100644
>>> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>>> @@ -292,7 +292,10 @@ void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>       if (unlikely(access_error(cause, vma))) {
>>>           vma_end_read(vma);
>>> -        goto lock_mmap;
>>> +        count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
>>> +        tsk->thread.bad_cause = SEGV_ACCERR;
>>
>>
>> I think we should use the cause variable here instead of SEGV_ACCERR, 
>> as bad_cause is a riscv internal status which describes the real 
>> fault that happened.
>
> Oh, I see, it is exception causes on riscv, so it should be
>
> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
> index b3fcf7d67efb..5224f3733802 100644
> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
> @@ -293,8 +293,8 @@ void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
>         if (unlikely(access_error(cause, vma))) {
>                 vma_end_read(vma);
>                 count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
> -               tsk->thread.bad_cause = SEGV_ACCERR;
> -               bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, code, addr);
> +               tsk->thread.bad_cause = cause;
> +               bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, SEGV_ACCERR, addr);
>                 return;
>         }
>
> Hi Alex, could you help to check it?
>
> Hi Andrew, please help to squash it after Alex ack it.
>
> Thanks both.


So I have just tested Kefeng's fixup on my usual CI and with a simple 
program that triggers such bad access, everything went fine so with the 
fixup applied:

Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
Tested-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>

Thanks,

Alex



>
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>>> +        bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, code, addr);
>>> +        return;
>>>       }
>>>       fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, flags | 
>>> FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK, regs);
Kefeng Wang April 11, 2024, 1:17 a.m. UTC | #4
On 2024/4/11 1:28, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
> On 10/04/2024 10:07, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 2024/4/10 15:32, Alexandre Ghiti wrote:
>>> Hi Kefeng,
>>>
>>> On 03/04/2024 10:38, Kefeng Wang wrote:
>>>> The access_error() of vma already checked under per-VMA lock, if it
>>>> is a bad access, directly handle error, no need to retry with mmap_lock
>>>> again. Since the page faut is handled under per-VMA lock, count it as
>>>> a vma lock event with VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS.
>>>>
>>>> Reviewed-by: Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   arch/riscv/mm/fault.c | 5 ++++-
>>>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>>>> index 3ba1d4dde5dd..b3fcf7d67efb 100644
>>>> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>>>> @@ -292,7 +292,10 @@ void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>>>       if (unlikely(access_error(cause, vma))) {
>>>>           vma_end_read(vma);
>>>> -        goto lock_mmap;
>>>> +        count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
>>>> +        tsk->thread.bad_cause = SEGV_ACCERR;
>>>
>>>
>>> I think we should use the cause variable here instead of SEGV_ACCERR, 
>>> as bad_cause is a riscv internal status which describes the real 
>>> fault that happened.
>>
>> Oh, I see, it is exception causes on riscv, so it should be
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>> index b3fcf7d67efb..5224f3733802 100644
>> --- a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>> +++ b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
>> @@ -293,8 +293,8 @@ void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
>>         if (unlikely(access_error(cause, vma))) {
>>                 vma_end_read(vma);
>>                 count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
>> -               tsk->thread.bad_cause = SEGV_ACCERR;
>> -               bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, code, addr);
>> +               tsk->thread.bad_cause = cause;
>> +               bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, SEGV_ACCERR, addr);
>>                 return;
>>         }
>>
>> Hi Alex, could you help to check it?
>>
>> Hi Andrew, please help to squash it after Alex ack it.
>>
>> Thanks both.
> 
> 
> So I have just tested Kefeng's fixup on my usual CI and with a simple 
> program that triggers such bad access, everything went fine so with the 
> fixup applied:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>
> Tested-by: Alexandre Ghiti <alexghiti@rivosinc.com>

Great, thanks.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>>> +        bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, code, addr);
>>>> +        return;
>>>>       }
>>>>       fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, flags | 
>>>> FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK, regs);
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
index 3ba1d4dde5dd..b3fcf7d67efb 100644
--- a/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
+++ b/arch/riscv/mm/fault.c
@@ -292,7 +292,10 @@  void handle_page_fault(struct pt_regs *regs)
 
 	if (unlikely(access_error(cause, vma))) {
 		vma_end_read(vma);
-		goto lock_mmap;
+		count_vm_vma_lock_event(VMA_LOCK_SUCCESS);
+		tsk->thread.bad_cause = SEGV_ACCERR;
+		bad_area_nosemaphore(regs, code, addr);
+		return;
 	}
 
 	fault = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, flags | FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK, regs);