Re: [RFC PATCH] hugetlbfs: zero partial pages during fallocate hole punch

[Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>]

On 3/30/22 00:58, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 24.03.22 18:06, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>> hugetlbfs fallocate support was originally added with commit 70c3547e36f5
>> ("hugetlbfs: add hugetlbfs_fallocate()").  Initial support only operated
>> on whole hugetlb pages.  This makes sense for populating files as other
>> interfaces such as mmap and truncate require hugetlb page size alignment.
>> Only operating on whole hugetlb pages for the hole punch case was a
>> simplification and there was no compelling use case to zero partial pages.
>>
>> In a recent discussion[1] it was assumed that hugetlbfs hole punch would
>> zero partial hugetlb pages as that is in line with the man page
>> description saying 'partial filesystem  blocks  are  zeroed'.  However,
>> the hugetlbfs hole punch code actually does this:
>>
>>         hole_start = round_up(offset, hpage_size);
>>         hole_end = round_down(offset + len, hpage_size);
>>
>> Modify code to zero partial hugetlb pages in hole punch range.  It is
>> possible that application code could note a change in behavior.  However,
>> that would imply the code is passing in an unaligned range and expecting
>> only whole pages be removed.  This is unlikely as the fallocate
>> documentation states the opposite.
> 
> Yeah, some weird code could behave differently; an app would have to
> pass in an unaligned range and expect that partially covered hugetlbfs
> pages remain unmodified.  It's hard to think of reasonable apps that do
> that, but of course, some buggy code might then be *actually* broken.
> Like some messed-up align-up implementation that accidentally adds +1
> too much.
> 
>>
>> The current hugetlbfs fallocate hole punch behavior is tested with the
>> libhugetlbfs test fallocate_align[2].  This test will be updated to
>> validate partial page zeroing.
> 
> This is in line with other fallocate() behavior and documented
> semantics, so I think that's the right thing to do.
> 
> I think it's worth to give it a try, it's hard to imagine that this
> actually breaks something.
> 
> 
> "After a successful call, subsequent reads from  this  range will return
> zeros." will work as expected with your change.
> 
>>
>> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-mm/20571829-9d3d-0b48-817c-b6b15565f651@redhat.com/
>> [2] https://github.com/libhugetlbfs/libhugetlbfs/blob/master/tests/fallocate_align.c
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c      | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>  include/asm-generic/tlb.h |  2 ++
>>  2 files changed, 54 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>> index a7c6c7498be0..f62ec4f71132 100644
>> --- a/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>> +++ b/fs/hugetlbfs/inode.c
>> @@ -587,41 +587,78 @@ static void hugetlb_vmtruncate(struct inode *inode, loff_t offset)
>>  	remove_inode_hugepages(inode, offset, LLONG_MAX);
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void hugetlbfs_zero_partial_page(struct hstate *h,
>> +					struct address_space *mapping,
>> +					unsigned long start,
>> +					unsigned long end)
>> +{
>> +	struct page *page;
>> +	pgoff_t idx = start >> huge_page_shift(h);
> 
> I'm a fan of reverse Christmas trees :)
> 

Ok, no preference by me so I will change.

...

>> diff --git a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
>> index 2c68a545ffa7..4622ee45f739 100644
>> --- a/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
>> +++ b/include/asm-generic/tlb.h
>> @@ -562,6 +562,7 @@ static inline void tlb_flush_p4d_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>  		__tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, ptep, address);	\
>>  	} while (0)
>>  
>> +#ifndef tlb_remove_huge_tlb_entry
>>  #define tlb_remove_huge_tlb_entry(h, tlb, ptep, address)	\
>>  	do {							\
>>  		unsigned long _sz = huge_page_size(h);		\
>> @@ -571,6 +572,7 @@ static inline void tlb_flush_p4d_range(struct mmu_gather *tlb,
>>  			tlb_flush_pud_range(tlb, address, _sz);	\
>>  		__tlb_remove_tlb_entry(tlb, ptep, address);	\
>>  	} while (0)
>> +#endif
> 
> Was this change supposed to be included in this patch?

No, this should not have been included.  Sorry.

Thanks for taking a look.
-- 
Mike Kravetz