From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<akpm@linux-foundation.org>, <vbabka@suse.cz>, <mhocko@suse.com>,
<david@redhat.com>, <osalvador@suse.de>,
<dan.j.williams@intel.com>, <sashal@kernel.org>,
<tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com>, <iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com>,
<mike.kravetz@oracle.com>, <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
<mingo@redhat.com>, <jgg@ziepe.ca>, <peterz@infradead.org>,
<mgorman@suse.de>, <willy@infradead.org>, <rientjes@google.com>,
<linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>, <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] selftests/vm: test faulting in kernel, and verify pinnable pages
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2020 21:57:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <75b6fb52-ef2c-e17b-2e43-45be913c6206@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201217185243.3288048-11-pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
On 12/17/20 10:52 AM, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
>
Hi Pavel,
This all looks good pretty good to me, with just a couple of minor
doubts interleaved with the documentation tweaks:
a) I'm not yet sure if the is_pinnable_page() concept is a keeper. If it's
not for some reason, then we should revisit this patch.
b) I don't yet understand why FOLL_TOUCH from gup/pup is a critical part
of the test.
> When pages are pinned they can be faulted in userland and migrated, and
> they can be faulted right in kernel without migration.
>
> In either case, the pinned pages must end-up being pinnable (not movable).
Let's delete the above two sentences, which are confusing as currently
worded, and just keep approximately the last sentence below.
>
> Add a new test without touching pages in userland, and use FOLL_TOUCH
> instead. Also, verify that pinned pages are pinnable.
Maybe this instead:
Add a new test to gup_test, to verify that only "pinnable" pages are
pinned. Also, use gup/pup + FOLL_TOUCH to fault in the pages, rather
than faulting them in from user space.
? But I don't know why that second point is important. Is it actually
important in order to have a valid test? If so, why?
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@soleen.com>
> ---
> mm/gup_test.c | 6 ++++++
> tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c | 17 +++++++++++++----
> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mm/gup_test.c b/mm/gup_test.c
> index 24c70c5814ba..24fd542091ee 100644
> --- a/mm/gup_test.c
> +++ b/mm/gup_test.c
> @@ -52,6 +52,12 @@ static void verify_dma_pinned(unsigned int cmd, struct page **pages,
>
> dump_page(page, "gup_test failure");
> break;
> + } else if (cmd == PIN_LONGTERM_BENCHMARK &&
> + WARN(!is_pinnable_page(page),
> + "pages[%lu] is NOT pinnable but pinned\n",
> + i)) {
> + dump_page(page, "gup_test failure");
> + break;
> }
> }
> break;
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c
> index 42c71483729f..f08cc97d424d 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/gup_test.c
> @@ -13,6 +13,7 @@
>
> /* Just the flags we need, copied from mm.h: */
> #define FOLL_WRITE 0x01 /* check pte is writable */
> +#define FOLL_TOUCH 0x02 /* mark page accessed */
Aha, now I see why you wanted to pass other GUP flags, in the previous
patch. I think it's OK to pass this set of possible flags (as
.gup_flags) through ioctl, yes.
However (this is about the previous patch), I *think* we're better off
leaving the gup_test behavior as: "default is read-only pages, but you
can pass in -w to specify FOLL_WRITE". As opposed to passing in raw
flags from the command line. And yes, I realize that my -F option seemed
to recommand the latter...I'm regretting that -F approach now.
The other direction to go might be to stop doing that, and shift over to
just let the user specify FOLL_* flags directly on the command line, but
IMHO there's no need for that (yet), and it's a little less error-prone
to constrain it.
This leads to: change the "-F 1", to some other better-named option,
perhaps. Open to suggestion there.
>
> static char *cmd_to_str(unsigned long cmd)
> {
> @@ -39,11 +40,11 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> unsigned long size = 128 * MB;
> int i, fd, filed, opt, nr_pages = 1, thp = -1, repeats = 1, write = 1;
> unsigned long cmd = GUP_FAST_BENCHMARK;
> - int flags = MAP_PRIVATE;
> + int flags = MAP_PRIVATE, touch = 0;
Silly nit, can we put it on its own line? This pre-existing mess of
declarations makes it hard to read everything. One item per line is
easier on the reader, who is often just looking for a single item at a
time. Actually why not rename it slightly while we're here (see below),
maybe to this:
int use_foll_touch = 0;
> char *file = "/dev/zero";
> char *p;
>
> - while ((opt = getopt(argc, argv, "m:r:n:F:f:abctTLUuwWSHp")) != -1) {
> + while ((opt = getopt(argc, argv, "m:r:n:F:f:abctTLUuwWSHpz")) != -1) {
Yes, this seems worth its own command line option.
> switch (opt) {
> case 'a':
> cmd = PIN_FAST_BENCHMARK;
> @@ -110,6 +111,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> case 'H':
> flags |= (MAP_HUGETLB | MAP_ANONYMOUS);
> break;
> + case 'z':
> + /* fault pages in gup, do not fault in userland */
How about:
/*
* Use gup/pup(FOLL_TOUCH), *instead* of faulting
* pages in from user space.
*/
use_foll_touch = 1;
> + touch = 1;
> + break;
> default:
> return -1;
> }
> @@ -167,8 +172,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> else if (thp == 0)
> madvise(p, size, MADV_NOHUGEPAGE);
>
> - for (; (unsigned long)p < gup.addr + size; p += PAGE_SIZE)
> - p[0] = 0;
> + if (touch) {
> + gup.flags |= FOLL_TOUCH;
> + } else {
> + for (; (unsigned long)p < gup.addr + size; p += PAGE_SIZE)
> + p[0] = 0;
> + }
OK.
>
> /* Only report timing information on the *_BENCHMARK commands: */
> if ((cmd == PIN_FAST_BENCHMARK) || (cmd == GUP_FAST_BENCHMARK) ||
>
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-19 5:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-17 18:52 [PATCH v4 00/10] prohibit pinning pages in ZONE_MOVABLE Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 01/10] mm/gup: don't pin migrated cma pages in movable zone Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 02/10] mm cma: rename PF_MEMALLOC_NOCMA to PF_MEMALLOC_PIN Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 03/10] mm: apply per-task gfp constraints in fast path Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-18 9:36 ` Michal Hocko
2020-12-18 12:23 ` Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 04/10] mm: honor PF_MEMALLOC_PIN for all movable pages Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 05/10] mm/gup: migrate pinned pages out of movable zone Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-18 9:43 ` Michal Hocko
2020-12-18 12:24 ` Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-18 13:08 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-13 19:14 ` Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 06/10] memory-hotplug.rst: add a note about ZONE_MOVABLE and page pinning Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-18 9:44 ` Michal Hocko
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 07/10] mm/gup: change index type to long as it counts pages Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-18 9:50 ` Michal Hocko
2020-12-18 12:32 ` Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 08/10] mm/gup: limit number of gup migration failures, honor failures Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-17 20:50 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-12-17 22:02 ` Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-18 14:19 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-01-13 19:43 ` Pavel Tatashin
2021-01-13 19:55 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-01-13 20:05 ` Pavel Tatashin
2021-01-13 23:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2021-01-15 18:10 ` Pavel Tatashin
2021-01-15 18:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2020-12-18 10:46 ` Michal Hocko
2020-12-18 12:43 ` Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-18 13:04 ` David Hildenbrand
2020-12-18 13:14 ` Michal Hocko
2021-01-13 19:49 ` Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 09/10] selftests/vm: test flag is broken Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-18 9:06 ` John Hubbard
2020-12-18 9:11 ` John Hubbard
2020-12-17 18:52 ` [PATCH v4 10/10] selftests/vm: test faulting in kernel, and verify pinnable pages Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-19 5:57 ` John Hubbard [this message]
2020-12-19 15:22 ` Pavel Tatashin
2020-12-19 23:51 ` John Hubbard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=75b6fb52-ef2c-e17b-2e43-45be913c6206@nvidia.com \
--to=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=iamjoonsoo.kim@lge.com \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=linux-doc@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mgorman@suse.de \
--cc=mhocko@suse.com \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=osalvador@suse.de \
--cc=pasha.tatashin@soleen.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rientjes@google.com \
--cc=rostedt@goodmis.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=tyhicks@linux.microsoft.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox