From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
Cc: "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@lst.de>,
"Jérôme Glisse" <jglisse@redhat.com>,
"Ben Skeggs" <bskeggs@redhat.com>,
"Felix Kuehling" <Felix.Kuehling@amd.com>,
"Ralph Campbell" <rcampbell@nvidia.com>,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
"nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org"
<dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm: remove the pgmap field from struct hmm_vma_walk
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 11:47:22 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4hPCuHBLhSJgZZEh0CbuuJNPLFDA3f-79FX5uVOO0yubA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190807174548.GJ1571@mellanox.com>
On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:45 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2019 at 07:05:42PM +0300, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > There is only a single place where the pgmap is passed over a function
> > call, so replace it with local variables in the places where we deal
> > with the pgmap.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
> > mm/hmm.c | 62 ++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 27 insertions(+), 35 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
> > index 9a908902e4cc..d66fa29b42e0 100644
> > +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> > @@ -278,7 +278,6 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(hmm_mirror_unregister);
> >
> > struct hmm_vma_walk {
> > struct hmm_range *range;
> > - struct dev_pagemap *pgmap;
> > unsigned long last;
> > unsigned int flags;
> > };
> > @@ -475,6 +474,7 @@ static int hmm_vma_handle_pmd(struct mm_walk *walk,
> > #ifdef CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE
> > struct hmm_vma_walk *hmm_vma_walk = walk->private;
> > struct hmm_range *range = hmm_vma_walk->range;
> > + struct dev_pagemap *pgmap = NULL;
> > unsigned long pfn, npages, i;
> > bool fault, write_fault;
> > uint64_t cpu_flags;
> > @@ -490,17 +490,14 @@ static int hmm_vma_handle_pmd(struct mm_walk *walk,
> > pfn = pmd_pfn(pmd) + pte_index(addr);
> > for (i = 0; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE, i++, pfn++) {
> > if (pmd_devmap(pmd)) {
> > - hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pfn,
> > - hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> > - if (unlikely(!hmm_vma_walk->pgmap))
> > + pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pfn, pgmap);
> > + if (unlikely(!pgmap))
> > return -EBUSY;
>
> Unrelated to this patch, but what is the point of getting checking
> that the pgmap exists for the page and then immediately releasing it?
> This code has this pattern in several places.
>
> It feels racy
Agree, not sure what the intent is here. The only other reason call
get_dev_pagemap() is to just check in general if the pfn is indeed
owned by some ZONE_DEVICE instance, but if the intent is to make sure
the device is still attached/enabled that check is invalidated at
put_dev_pagemap().
If it's the former case, validating ZONE_DEVICE pfns, I imagine we can
do something cheaper with a helper that is on the order of the same
cost as pfn_valid(). I.e. replace PTE_DEVMAP with a mem_section flag
or something similar.
>
> > }
> > pfns[i] = hmm_device_entry_from_pfn(range, pfn) | cpu_flags;
> > }
> > - if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
> > - put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> > - hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
>
> Putting the value in the hmm_vma_walk would have made some sense to me
> if the pgmap was not set to NULL all over the place. Then the most
> xa_loads would be eliminated, as I would expect the pgmap tends to be
> mostly uniform for these use cases.
>
> Is there some reason the pgmap ref can't be held across
> faulting/sleeping? ie like below.
No restriction on holding refs over faulting / sleeping.
>
> Anyhow, I looked over this pretty carefully and the change looks
> functionally OK, I just don't know why the code is like this in the
> first place.
>
> Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@mellanox.com>
>
> diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
> index 9a908902e4cc38..4e30128c23a505 100644
> --- a/mm/hmm.c
> +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> @@ -497,10 +497,6 @@ static int hmm_vma_handle_pmd(struct mm_walk *walk,
> }
> pfns[i] = hmm_device_entry_from_pfn(range, pfn) | cpu_flags;
> }
> - if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
> - put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> - hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
> - }
> hmm_vma_walk->last = end;
> return 0;
> #else
> @@ -604,10 +600,6 @@ static int hmm_vma_handle_pte(struct mm_walk *walk, unsigned long addr,
> return 0;
>
> fault:
> - if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
> - put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> - hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
> - }
> pte_unmap(ptep);
> /* Fault any virtual address we were asked to fault */
> return hmm_vma_walk_hole_(addr, end, fault, write_fault, walk);
> @@ -690,16 +682,6 @@ static int hmm_vma_walk_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp,
> return r;
> }
> }
> - if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
> - /*
> - * We do put_dev_pagemap() here and not in hmm_vma_handle_pte()
> - * so that we can leverage get_dev_pagemap() optimization which
> - * will not re-take a reference on a pgmap if we already have
> - * one.
> - */
> - put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> - hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
> - }
> pte_unmap(ptep - 1);
>
> hmm_vma_walk->last = addr;
> @@ -751,10 +733,6 @@ static int hmm_vma_walk_pud(pud_t *pudp,
> pfns[i] = hmm_device_entry_from_pfn(range, pfn) |
> cpu_flags;
> }
> - if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
> - put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> - hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
> - }
> hmm_vma_walk->last = end;
> return 0;
> }
> @@ -1026,6 +1004,14 @@ long hmm_range_fault(struct hmm_range *range, unsigned int flags)
> /* Keep trying while the range is valid. */
> } while (ret == -EBUSY && range->valid);
>
> + /*
> + * We do put_dev_pagemap() here so that we can leverage
> + * get_dev_pagemap() optimization which will not re-take a
> + * reference on a pgmap if we already have one.
> + */
> + if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap)
> + put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> +
Seems ok, but only if the caller is guaranteeing that the range does
not span outside of a single pagemap instance. If that guarantee is
met why not just have the caller pass in a pinned pagemap? If that
guarantee is not met, then I think we're back to your race concern.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-07 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 56+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-06 16:05 hmm cleanups, v2 Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 01/15] amdgpu: remove -EAGAIN handling for hmm_range_fault Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 02/15] amdgpu: don't initialize range->list in amdgpu_hmm_init_range Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 03/15] nouveau: pass struct nouveau_svmm to nouveau_range_fault Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 18:02 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 04/15] mm: remove the pgmap field from struct hmm_vma_walk Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-07 17:45 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-07 18:47 ` Dan Williams [this message]
2019-08-08 6:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-14 1:36 ` Dan Williams
2019-08-14 7:38 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-14 13:27 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-14 14:48 ` Dan Williams
2019-08-15 18:03 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-15 19:22 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 19:36 ` Dan Williams
2019-08-15 19:43 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-15 20:12 ` Dan Williams
2019-08-15 20:33 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-15 20:41 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-15 20:47 ` Dan Williams
2019-08-16 0:40 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 3:54 ` Dan Williams
2019-08-16 12:24 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 17:21 ` Dan Williams
2019-08-16 17:28 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 21:10 ` Ralph Campbell
2019-08-15 20:51 ` Jerome Glisse
2019-08-16 0:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 4:44 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-16 12:30 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-16 12:34 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-16 4:41 ` Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 05/15] mm: remove the unused vma argument to hmm_range_dma_unmap Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 06/15] mm: remove superflous arguments from hmm_range_register Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 07/15] mm: remove the page_shift member from struct hmm_range Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-07 17:51 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 08/15] mm: remove the mask variable in hmm_vma_walk_hugetlb_entry Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 18:02 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 09/15] mm: don't abuse pte_index() in hmm_vma_handle_pmd Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-07 17:18 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 10/15] mm: only define hmm_vma_walk_pud if needed Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 11/15] mm: cleanup the hmm_vma_handle_pmd stub Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 18:00 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 12/15] mm: cleanup the hmm_vma_walk_hugetlb_entry stub Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 13/15] mm: allow HMM_MIRROR on all architectures with MMU Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 14/15] mm: make HMM_MIRROR an implicit option Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 17:44 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-06 16:05 ` [PATCH 15/15] amdgpu: remove CONFIG_DRM_AMDGPU_USERPTR Christoph Hellwig
2019-08-06 17:44 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-06 17:51 ` Kuehling, Felix
2019-08-06 18:58 ` Alex Deucher
2019-08-06 20:03 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-07 6:57 ` Koenig, Christian
2019-08-07 11:46 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-07 18:17 ` hmm cleanups, v2 Jason Gunthorpe
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=CAPcyv4hPCuHBLhSJgZZEh0CbuuJNPLFDA3f-79FX5uVOO0yubA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=Felix.Kuehling@amd.com \
--cc=amd-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=bskeggs@redhat.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=hch@lst.de \
--cc=jgg@mellanox.com \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=nouveau@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
/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