From: Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com>
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
Cc: Jordan Niethe <jniethe@nvidia.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
<balbirs@nvidia.com>, <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org>,
<david@redhat.com>, <ziy@nvidia.com>,
<lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com>, <lyude@redhat.com>,
<dakr@kernel.org>, <airlied@gmail.com>, <simona@ffwll.ch>,
<rcampbell@nvidia.com>, <mpenttil@redhat.com>, <jgg@nvidia.com>,
<willy@infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove device private pages from physical address space
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2025 17:51:47 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aSz0s8plXN/6t7fD@lstrano-desk.jf.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <anu425gyhd5w3boribueuyckjlg73r356kkoy6iv6dcsy6b5ar@5qnbvtymgmje>
On Mon, Dec 01, 2025 at 10:23:32AM +1100, Alistair Popple wrote:
> On 2025-11-29 at 06:22 +1100, Matthew Brost <matthew.brost@intel.com> wrote...
> > On Fri, Nov 28, 2025 at 03:41:40PM +1100, Jordan Niethe wrote:
> > > Today, when creating these device private struct pages, the first step
> > > is to use request_free_mem_region() to get a range of physical address
> > > space large enough to represent the devices memory. This allocated
> > > physical address range is then remapped as device private memory using
> > > memremap_pages.
> > >
> > > Needing allocation of physical address space has some problems:
> > >
> > > 1) There may be insufficient physical address space to represent the
> > > device memory. KASLR reducing the physical address space and VM
> > > configurations with limited physical address space increase the
> > > likelihood of hitting this especially as device memory increases. This
> > > has been observed to prevent device private from being initialized.
> > >
> > > 2) Attempting to add the device private pages to the linear map at
> > > addresses beyond the actual physical memory causes issues on
> > > architectures like aarch64 - meaning the feature does not work there [0].
> > >
> > > This RFC changes device private memory so that it does not require
> > > allocation of physical address space and these problems are avoided.
> > > Instead of using the physical address space, we introduce a "device
> > > private address space" and allocate from there.
> > >
> > > A consequence of placing the device private pages outside of the
> > > physical address space is that they no longer have a PFN. However, it is
> > > still necessary to be able to look up a corresponding device private
> > > page from a device private PTE entry, which means that we still require
> > > some way to index into this device private address space. This leads to
> > > the idea of a device private PFN. This is like a PFN but instead of
> > > associating memory in the physical address space with a struct page, it
> > > associates device memory in the device private address space with a
> > > device private struct page.
> > >
> > > The problem that then needs to be addressed is how to avoid confusing
> > > these device private PFNs with the regular PFNs. It is the inherent
> > > limited usage of the device private pages themselves which make this
> > > possible. A device private page is only used for userspace mappings, we
> > > do not need to be concerned with them being used within the mm more
> > > broadly. This means that the only way that the core kernel looks up
> > > these pages is via the page table, where their PTE already indicates if
> > > they refer to a device private page via their swap type, e.g.
> > > SWP_DEVICE_WRITE. We can use this information to determine if the PTE
> > > contains a normal PFN which should be looked up in the page map, or a
> > > device private PFN which should be looked up elsewhere.
> > >
> > > This applies when we are creating PTE entries for device private pages -
> > > because they have their own type there are already must be handled
> > > separately, so it is a small step to convert them to a device private
> > > PFN now too.
> > >
> > > The first part of the series updates callers where device private PFNs
> > > might now be encountered to track this extra state.
> > >
> > > The last patch contains the bulk of the work where we change how we
> > > convert between device private pages to device private PFNs and then use
> > > a new interface for allocating device private pages without the need for
> > > reserving physical address space.
> > >
> > > For the purposes of the RFC changes have been limited to test_hmm.c
> > > updates to the other drivers will be included in the next revision.
> > >
> > > This would include updating existing users of memremap_pages() to use
> > > memremap_device_private_pagemap() instead to allocate device private
> > > pages. This also means they would no longer need to call
> > > request_free_mem_region(). An equivalent of devm_memremap_pages() will
> > > also be necessary.
> > >
> > > Users of the migrate_vma() interface will also need to be updated to be
> > > aware these device private PFNs.
> > >
> > > By removing the device private pages from the physical address space,
> > > this RFC also opens up the possibility to moving away from tracking
> > > device private memory using struct pages in the future. This is
> > > desirable as on systems with large amounts of memory these device
> > > private struct pages use a signifiant amount of memory and take a
> > > significant amount of time to initialize.
> >
> > A couple things.
> >
> > - I’m fairly certain that, briefly looking at this, it will break all
> > upstream DRM drivers (AMDKFD, Nouveau, Xe / GPUSVM) that use device
> > private pages. I looked into what I think conflicts with Xe / GPUSVM,
> > and I believe the impact is fairly minor. I’m happy to help by pulling
> > this code and fixing up our side.
>
> It most certainly will :-) I think Jordan called that out above but we wanted
I don't always read.
> to get the design right before spending too much time updating drivers. That
> said I don't think the driver changes should be extensive, but let us know if
> you disagree.
I did a quick look, and I believe it pretty minor (e.g., pfn_to_page is used a
few places for device pages which would need a refactor, etc...). Maybe
a bit more, we will find out but not too concerned.
>
> > - I’m fully on board with eventually moving to something that uses less
> > memory than struct page, and I’m happy to coordinate on future changes.
>
> Thanks!
>
> > - Before we start coordinating on this patch set, should we hold off until
> > the 6.19 cycle, which includes 2M device pages from Balbir [1] (i.e.,
> > rebase this series on top of 6.19 once it includes 2M pages)? I suspect
> > that, given the scope of this series and Balbir’s, there will be some
> > conflicts.
>
> Our aim here is to get some review of the design and the patches/implementation
> for the 6.19 cycle but I agree that this will need to get rebased on top of
> Balbir's series.
+1. Will be on the lookout for the next post and pull into 6.19 DRM tree
and at least test out the Intel stuffi + send fixes if needed.
I can enable both of you for Intel CI too, just include intel-xe list on
next post and it will get kicked off and you can find the results on
patchworks.
Matt
>
> - Alistair
>
> > Matt
> >
> > [1] https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/152798/
> >
> > >
> > > Testing:
> > > - selftests/mm/hmm-tests on an amd64 VM
> > >
> > > [0] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAMj1kXFZ=4hLL1w6iCV5O5uVoVLHAJbc0rr40j24ObenAjXe9w@mail.gmail.com/
> > >
> > > Jordan Niethe (6):
> > > mm/hmm: Add flag to track device private PFNs
> > > mm/migrate_device: Add migrate PFN flag to track device private PFNs
> > > mm/page_vma_mapped: Add flags to page_vma_mapped_walk::pfn to track
> > > device private PFNs
> > > mm: Add a new swap type for migration entries with device private PFNs
> > > mm/util: Add flag to track device private PFNs in page snapshots
> > > mm: Remove device private pages from the physical address space
> > >
> > > Documentation/mm/hmm.rst | 9 +-
> > > fs/proc/page.c | 6 +-
> > > include/linux/hmm.h | 5 ++
> > > include/linux/memremap.h | 25 +++++-
> > > include/linux/migrate.h | 5 ++
> > > include/linux/mm.h | 9 +-
> > > include/linux/rmap.h | 33 +++++++-
> > > include/linux/swap.h | 8 +-
> > > include/linux/swapops.h | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > lib/test_hmm.c | 66 ++++++++-------
> > > mm/debug.c | 9 +-
> > > mm/hmm.c | 2 +-
> > > mm/memory.c | 9 +-
> > > mm/memremap.c | 174 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > > mm/migrate.c | 6 +-
> > > mm/migrate_device.c | 44 ++++++----
> > > mm/mm_init.c | 8 +-
> > > mm/mprotect.c | 21 +++--
> > > mm/page_vma_mapped.c | 18 +++-
> > > mm/pagewalk.c | 2 +-
> > > mm/rmap.c | 68 ++++++++++-----
> > > mm/util.c | 8 +-
> > > mm/vmscan.c | 2 +-
> > > 23 files changed, 485 insertions(+), 154 deletions(-)
> > >
> > >
> > > base-commit: e1afacb68573c3cd0a3785c6b0508876cd3423bc
> > > --
> > > 2.34.1
> > >
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2025-12-01 1:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2025-11-28 4:41 Jordan Niethe
2025-11-28 4:41 ` [RFC PATCH 1/6] mm/hmm: Add flag to track device private PFNs Jordan Niethe
2025-11-28 18:36 ` Matthew Brost
2025-12-02 1:20 ` Jordan Niethe
2025-12-03 4:25 ` Balbir Singh
2025-11-28 4:41 ` [RFC PATCH 2/6] mm/migrate_device: Add migrate PFN " Jordan Niethe
2025-11-28 4:41 ` [RFC PATCH 3/6] mm/page_vma_mapped: Add flags to page_vma_mapped_walk::pfn " Jordan Niethe
2025-11-28 4:41 ` [RFC PATCH 4/6] mm: Add a new swap type for migration entries with " Jordan Niethe
2025-12-01 2:43 ` Chih-En Lin
2025-12-02 1:42 ` Jordan Niethe
2025-11-28 4:41 ` [RFC PATCH 5/6] mm/util: Add flag to track device private PFNs in page snapshots Jordan Niethe
2025-11-28 4:41 ` [RFC PATCH 6/6] mm: Remove device private pages from the physical address space Jordan Niethe
2025-11-28 17:51 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2025-12-02 2:28 ` Jordan Niethe
2025-12-02 4:10 ` Alistair Popple
2025-11-28 7:40 ` [RFC PATCH 0/6] Remove device private pages from " David Hildenbrand (Red Hat)
2025-11-30 23:33 ` Alistair Popple
2025-11-28 15:09 ` Matthew Wilcox
2025-12-02 1:31 ` Jordan Niethe
2025-11-28 16:07 ` Mika Penttilä
2025-12-02 1:32 ` Jordan Niethe
2025-11-28 19:22 ` Matthew Brost
2025-11-30 23:23 ` Alistair Popple
2025-12-01 1:51 ` Matthew Brost [this message]
2025-12-02 1:40 ` Jordan Niethe
2025-12-02 22:20 ` Balbir Singh
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=aSz0s8plXN/6t7fD@lstrano-desk.jf.intel.com \
--to=matthew.brost@intel.com \
--cc=airlied@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=apopple@nvidia.com \
--cc=balbirs@nvidia.com \
--cc=dakr@kernel.org \
--cc=david@redhat.com \
--cc=dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org \
--cc=jgg@nvidia.com \
--cc=jniethe@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=lorenzo.stoakes@oracle.com \
--cc=lyude@redhat.com \
--cc=mpenttil@redhat.com \
--cc=rcampbell@nvidia.com \
--cc=simona@ffwll.ch \
--cc=willy@infradead.org \
--cc=ziy@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