Re: [PATCH 00/19] mm: Support huge pfnmaps

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 09.08.24 18:08, Peter Xu wrote:
> Overview
> ========
> 
> This series is based on mm-unstable, commit 98808d08fc0f of Aug 7th latest,
> plus dax 1g fix [1].  Note that this series should also apply if without
> the dax 1g fix series, but when without it, mprotect() will trigger similar
> errors otherwise on PUD mappings.
> 
> This series implements huge pfnmaps support for mm in general.  Huge pfnmap
> allows e.g. VM_PFNMAP vmas to map in either PMD or PUD levels, similar to
> what we do with dax / thp / hugetlb so far to benefit from TLB hits.  Now
> we extend that idea to PFN mappings, e.g. PCI MMIO bars where it can grow
> as large as 8GB or even bigger.
> 
> Currently, only x86_64 (1G+2M) and arm64 (2M) are supported.  The last
> patch (from Alex Williamson) will be the first user of huge pfnmap, so as
> to enable vfio-pci driver to fault in huge pfn mappings.
> 
> Implementation
> ==============
> 
> In reality, it's relatively simple to add such support comparing to many
> other types of mappings, because of PFNMAP's specialties when there's no
> vmemmap backing it, so that most of the kernel routines on huge mappings
> should simply already fail for them, like GUPs or old-school follow_page()
> (which is recently rewritten to be folio_walk* APIs by David).

Indeed, skimming most patches, there is very limit core-mm impact. I 
expected much more :)

I suspect primarily because DAX already paved the way. And as DAX likely 
supports fault-after-fork, which is why the fork() case wasn't relevant 
before.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb