Re: [PATCH 2/3] userfaultfd: UFFDIO_REMAP uABI

[Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>]

On Thu, Sep 21, 2023 at 11:17 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On 21.09.23 20:04, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 6:45 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 14.09.23 20:43, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> >>> On 14.09.23 20:11, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, Sep 14, 2023 at 08:26:12AM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >>>>> +++ b/include/linux/userfaultfd_k.h
> >>>>> @@ -93,6 +93,23 @@ extern int mwriteprotect_range(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> >>>>>     extern long uffd_wp_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>>>>                        unsigned long start, unsigned long len, bool enable_wp);
> >>>>>
> >>>>> +/* remap_pages */
> >>>>> +extern void double_pt_lock(spinlock_t *ptl1, spinlock_t *ptl2);
> >>>>> +extern void double_pt_unlock(spinlock_t *ptl1, spinlock_t *ptl2);
> >>>>> +extern ssize_t remap_pages(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> >>>>> +                      struct mm_struct *src_mm,
> >>>>> +                      unsigned long dst_start,
> >>>>> +                      unsigned long src_start,
> >>>>> +                      unsigned long len, __u64 flags);
> >>>>> +extern int remap_pages_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> >>>>> +                           struct mm_struct *src_mm,
> >>>>> +                           pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> >>>>> +                           pmd_t dst_pmdval,
> >>>>> +                           struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> >>>>> +                           struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
> >>>>> +                           unsigned long dst_addr,
> >>>>> +                           unsigned long src_addr);
> >>>>
> >>>> Drop the 'extern' markers from function declarations.
> >>>>
> >>>>> +int remap_pages_huge_pmd(struct mm_struct *dst_mm,
> >>>>> +                    struct mm_struct *src_mm,
> >>>>> +                    pmd_t *dst_pmd, pmd_t *src_pmd,
> >>>>> +                    pmd_t dst_pmdval,
> >>>>> +                    struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> >>>>> +                    struct vm_area_struct *src_vma,
> >>>>> +                    unsigned long dst_addr,
> >>>>> +                    unsigned long src_addr)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +   pmd_t _dst_pmd, src_pmdval;
> >>>>> +   struct page *src_page;
> >>>>> +   struct anon_vma *src_anon_vma, *dst_anon_vma;
> >>>>> +   spinlock_t *src_ptl, *dst_ptl;
> >>>>> +   pgtable_t pgtable;
> >>>>> +   struct mmu_notifier_range range;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +   src_pmdval = *src_pmd;
> >>>>> +   src_ptl = pmd_lockptr(src_mm, src_pmd);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +   BUG_ON(!pmd_trans_huge(src_pmdval));
> >>>>> +   BUG_ON(!pmd_none(dst_pmdval));
> >>>>> +   BUG_ON(!spin_is_locked(src_ptl));
> >>>>> +   mmap_assert_locked(src_mm);
> >>>>> +   mmap_assert_locked(dst_mm);
> >>>>> +   BUG_ON(src_addr & ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK);
> >>>>> +   BUG_ON(dst_addr & ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +   src_page = pmd_page(src_pmdval);
> >>>>> +   BUG_ON(!PageHead(src_page));
> >>>>> +   BUG_ON(!PageAnon(src_page));
> >>>>
> >>>> Better to add a src_folio = page_folio(src_page);
> >>>> and then folio_test_anon() here.
> >>>>
> >>>>> +   if (unlikely(page_mapcount(src_page) != 1)) {
> >>>>
> >>>> Brr, this is going to miss PTE mappings of this folio.  I think you
> >>>> actually want folio_mapcount() instead, although it'd be more efficient
> >>>> to look at folio->_entire_mapcount == 1 and _nr_pages_mapped == 0.
> >>>> Not wure what a good name for that predicate would be.
> >>>
> >>> We have
> >>>
> >>>     * It only works on non shared anonymous pages because those can
> >>>     * be relocated without generating non linear anon_vmas in the rmap
> >>>     * code.
> >>>     *
> >>>     * It provides a zero copy mechanism to handle userspace page faults.
> >>>     * The source vma pages should have mapcount == 1, which can be
> >>>     * enforced by using madvise(MADV_DONTFORK) on src vma.
> >>>
> >>> Use PageAnonExclusive(). As long as KSM is not involved and you don't
> >>> use fork(), that flag should be good enough for that use case here.
> >>>
> >> ... and similarly don't do any of that swapcount stuff and only check if
> >> the swap pte is anon exclusive.
> >
> > I'm preparing v2 and this is the only part left for me to address but
> > I'm not clear how. David, could you please clarify how I should be
> > checking swap pte to be exclusive without swapcount?
>
> If you have a real swp pte (not a non-swap pte like migration entries)
> you should be able to just use pte_swp_exclusive().

Got it. Thanks!

>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>