From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D456CC00A5A for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 03:09:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 4F6956B0071; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 22:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 4A6516B0072; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 22:09:55 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 36FCB6B0074; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 22:09:55 -0500 (EST) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from relay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0015.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.15]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 286D66B0071 for ; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 22:09:55 -0500 (EST) Received: from smtpin02.hostedemail.com (a10.router.float.18 [10.200.18.1]) by unirelay06.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF1BCAAEEB for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 03:09:54 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 80366440308.02.83413EF Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by imf08.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29578160011 for ; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 03:09:53 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Zh7HXVor; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=hostedemail.com; s=arc-20220608; t=1674011393; h=from:from:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:dkim-signature; bh=TTozoTYivpj8I4L2tIqMRp9GkC9vbzgfcsOJBU+tFh0=; b=yitwO35ImxwbiGrYXfF41wyYHHWYu/c1UtpFtHp28LehQsSuXYvTfEPYtIJN8m4WNQAkQ4 92hpyJ+KPjxcCcQgCl0MqcompWQt8hiDD+NFimeVDHSfaSS5Ffpm6SFrMY3iVA0cz1IiSC xJIZI86/AD2AaSLLVZst+b6UxBc11Wc= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; imf08.hostedemail.com; dkim=pass header.d=redhat.com header.s=mimecast20190719 header.b=Zh7HXVor; spf=pass (imf08.hostedemail.com: domain of bhe@redhat.com designates 170.10.129.124 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=bhe@redhat.com; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=redhat.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=arc-20220608; d=hostedemail.com; t=1674011393; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=gtHy2Y+DXWK4vEezz6DwAVR5s+COk+G3UXELhEzMq3Jwc7yCw/kXQaicY4xbTSpnlcn2/8 aIvpfXoxGluBCBLC6H9/zEHOe3nedhpLK9odqmYk1UkS7A1qMuPcpYnxQ5xudPI9FIPA9Q wonKbP+/3eyK1wjr4ZR4H5iTZfWfIAc= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1674011392; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=TTozoTYivpj8I4L2tIqMRp9GkC9vbzgfcsOJBU+tFh0=; b=Zh7HXVorj+QKT3D+E3NOaVXsYGp2tXY7Clwxwsoq+d/3QfDMqlMimDTG1PBQQ2Rn1C0goL BNKFgFstrJT8ooY38/KElISMKeYhSGIIkHoMU7pVNnVCiz85G/TEZI0r+KfBhL1Z4fy0zI GIYaBsb/JLIbOA/Wrvb+3V/GFZ98z9Q= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-227-7TMUMTMDNjyacfJSUnjcCQ-1; Tue, 17 Jan 2023 22:09:51 -0500 X-MC-Unique: 7TMUMTMDNjyacfJSUnjcCQ-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B39AB18811CE; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 03:09:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (ovpn-13-29.pek2.redhat.com [10.72.13.29]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 725C71121319; Wed, 18 Jan 2023 03:09:48 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2023 11:09:44 +0800 From: Baoquan He To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com, willy@infradead.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, hch@infradead.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] mm/vmalloc.c: add flags to mark vm_map_ram area Message-ID: References: <20221217015435.73889-1-bhe@redhat.com> <20221217015435.73889-3-bhe@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Rspamd-Server: rspam07 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 29578160011 X-Rspam-User: X-Stat-Signature: tsopqgidzhjxc5ezaen13x4gjceka98j X-HE-Tag: 1674011393-364734 X-HE-Meta: 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 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 01/16/23 at 06:54pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Fri, Jan 13, 2023 at 11:55:07AM +0800, Baoquan He wrote: > > Hi Uladzislau Rezkiļ¼Œ > > > > On 12/23/22 at 12:14pm, Baoquan He wrote: > > > On 12/20/22 at 05:55pm, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > ...... > > > > spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock); > > > > > insert_vmap_area(va, &vmap_area_root, &vmap_area_list); > > > > > @@ -1887,6 +1889,10 @@ struct vmap_area *find_vmap_area(unsigned long addr) > > > > > > > > > > #define VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE (VMAP_BBMAP_BITS * PAGE_SIZE) > > > > > > > > > > +#define VMAP_RAM 0x1 > > > > > +#define VMAP_BLOCK 0x2 > > > > > +#define VMAP_FLAGS_MASK 0x3 > > > > > > > > > Maybe to rename a VMAP_BLOCK to something like VMAP_BLOCK_RESERVED or > > > > VMAP_PER_CPU_BLOCK? > > > > > > Both VMAP_BLOCK or VMAP_PER_CPU_BLOCK look good to me, please see my > > > explanation at below. > > > > > > > > > > > > struct vmap_block_queue { > > > > > spinlock_t lock; > > > > > struct list_head free; > > > > > @@ -1962,7 +1968,8 @@ static void *new_vmap_block(unsigned int order, gfp_t gfp_mask) > > > > > > > > > > va = alloc_vmap_area(VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE, VMAP_BLOCK_SIZE, > > > > > VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END, > > > > > - node, gfp_mask); > > > > > + node, gfp_mask, > > > > > + VMAP_RAM|VMAP_BLOCK); > > > > > > > > > A new_vmap_block() is for a per-cpu path. As far as i see the VMAP_BLOCK > > > > flag is used to mark a VA that corresponds to a reserved per-cpu free area. > > > > > > > > Whereas a VMAP_RAM is for VA that was obtained over per-cpu path but > > > > over alloc_vmap_area() thus a VA should be read out over "busy" tree > > > > directly. > > > > Rethinking about the vmap->flags and the bit0->VMAP_RAM, > > bit1->VMAP_BLOCK correspondence, it looks better to use bit0->VMAP_RAM > > to indicate the vm_map_ram area, no matter how it's handled inside > > vm_map_ram() interface; and use bit1->VMAP_BLOCK to mark out the special > > vm_map_ram area which is further subdivided and managed by struct > > vmap_block. With these, you can see that we can identify vm_map_ram area > > and treat it as one type of vmalloc area, e.g in vread(), s_show(). > > > > Means when we are talking about vm_map_ram areas, we use > > (vmap->flags & VMAP_RAM) to recognize them; when we need to > > differentiate and handle vm_map_ram areas respectively, we use > > (vmap->flags & VMAP_BLOCK) to pick out the area which is further managed > > by vmap_block. Please help check if this is OK to you. > > > > > > > > > > Why do you need to set here both VMAP_RAM and VMAP_BLOCK? > > > > > > My understanding is that the vm_map_ram area has two types, one is > > > the vb percpu area via vb_alloc(), the other is allocated via > > > alloc_vmap_area(). While both of them is got from vm_map_ram() > > > interface, this is the main point that distinguishes the vm_map_ram area > > > than the normal vmalloc area, and this makes vm_map_ram area not owning > > > va->vm pointer. So here, I use flag VMAP_RAM to mark the vm_map_ram > > > area, including the two types; meanwhile, I add VMAP_BLOCK to mark out > > > the vb percpu area. > > > > > > I understand people could have different view about them, e.g as you > > > said, use VMAP_RAM to mark the type of vm_map_ram area allocated through > > > alloc_vmap_area(), while use VMAP_PER_CPU_BLOCK to mark vb percpu area > > > from vb_alloc. In this way, we may need to rename VMAP_RAM to reflect > > > the area allocated from alloc_vmap_area() only. Both is fine to me. > > > > > > > > > > > > if (IS_ERR(va)) { > > > > > kfree(vb); > > > > > return ERR_CAST(va); > > > > > @@ -2229,8 +2236,12 @@ void vm_unmap_ram(const void *mem, unsigned int count) > > > > > return; > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > - va = find_vmap_area(addr); > > > > > + spin_lock(&vmap_area_lock); > > > > > + va = __find_vmap_area((unsigned long)addr, &vmap_area_root); > > > > > BUG_ON(!va); > > > > > + if (va) > > > > > + va->flags &= ~VMAP_RAM; > > > > > + spin_unlock(&vmap_area_lock); > > > > > debug_check_no_locks_freed((void *)va->va_start, > > > > > > > > > Agree with Lorenzo. BUG_ON() should be out of spinlock(). Furthermore > > > > i think it makes sense to go with WARN_ON_ONCE() and do not kill a system. > > > > Instead emit a warning and bailout. > > > > > > > > What do you think? Maybe separate patch for it? > > > > > > Agree, your patch looks great to me. Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > > > (va->va_end - va->va_start)); > > > > > free_unmap_vmap_area(va); > > > > > @@ -2265,7 +2276,8 @@ void *vm_map_ram(struct page **pages, unsigned int count, int node) > > > > > } else { > > > > > struct vmap_area *va; > > > > > va = alloc_vmap_area(size, PAGE_SIZE, > > > > > - VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END, node, GFP_KERNEL); > > > > > + VMALLOC_START, VMALLOC_END, > > > > > + node, GFP_KERNEL, VMAP_RAM); > > > > > if (IS_ERR(va)) > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > > > > > @@ -2505,7 +2517,7 @@ static struct vm_struct *__get_vm_area_node(unsigned long size, > > > > > if (!(flags & VM_NO_GUARD)) > > > > > size += PAGE_SIZE; > > > > > > > > > > - va = alloc_vmap_area(size, align, start, end, node, gfp_mask); > > > > > + va = alloc_vmap_area(size, align, start, end, node, gfp_mask, 0); > > > > > if (IS_ERR(va)) { > > > > > kfree(area); > > > > > return NULL; > > > > > > > > > I know we have already discussed the new parameter. But what if we just > > > > use atomic_set operation to mark VA as either vmap-ram or vmap-block? > > > > As I replied at above, I take the vm_map_ram as one kind of vmalloc > > area, and mark out the percpu vmap block handling of vm_map_ram area. > > Seems the passing in the flags through function parameter is better. Not > > sure if I got your suggestion correctly, and my code change is > > appropriate. I have sent v3 according to your and Lorenzo's comments and > > suggestion, and my rethinking after reading your words. I make some > > adjustment to try to remove misundersanding or confusion when reading > > patch and code. Please help check if it's OK. > > > OK, if we decided to go with a parameter it is OK, it is not a big deal > and complexity. If needed it can be adjusted later on if there is a > need. My preference for function parameter passing is we don't need do the atomic reading when we want to check va->flags. However, in va->flags setting side, atomic_set() code is simpler than function parameter. flags = atomic_read(&va->flags); if (flags & VMAP_RAM) { } I checked code, and feel it doesn't have much difference, so keep the current code. If there's other thing I didn't think of, we can still change. Thanks.