On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:15:04PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> On 06/15/2016 08:02 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 03:08:19PM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
> >> > On 05/31/2016 05:31 AM, Minchan Kim wrote:
> >>> > > @@ -791,6 +921,7 @@ static int __unmap_and_move(struct page *page, struct page *newpage,
> >>> > > int rc = -EAGAIN;
> >>> > > int page_was_mapped = 0;
> >>> > > struct anon_vma *anon_vma = NULL;
> >>> > > + bool is_lru = !__PageMovable(page);
> >>> > >
> >>> > > if (!trylock_page(page)) {
> >>> > > if (!force || mode == MIGRATE_ASYNC)
> >>> > > @@ -871,6 +1002,11 @@ static int __unmap_and_move(struct page *page, struct page *newpage,
> >>> > > goto out_unlock_both;
> >>> > > }
> >>> > >
> >>> > > + if (unlikely(!is_lru)) {
> >>> > > + rc = move_to_new_page(newpage, page, mode);
> >>> > > + goto out_unlock_both;
> >>> > > + }
> >>> > > +
> >> >
> >> > Hello Minchan,
> >> >
> >> > I might be missing something here but does this implementation support the
> >> > scenario where these non LRU pages owned by the driver mapped as PTE into
> >> > process page table ? Because the "goto out_unlock_both" statement above
> >> > skips all the PTE unmap, putting a migration PTE and removing the migration
> >> > PTE steps.
> > You're right. Unfortunately, it doesn't support right now but surely,
> > it's my TODO after landing this work.
> >
> > Could you share your usecase?
>
> Sure.
Thanks a lot!
>
> My driver has privately managed non LRU pages which gets mapped into user space
> process page table through f_ops->mmap() and vmops->fault() which then updates
> the file RMAP (page->mapping->i_mmap) through page_add_file_rmap(page). One thing
Hmm, page_add_file_rmap is not exported function. How does your driver can use it?
Do you use vm_insert_pfn?
What type your vma is? VM_PFNMMAP or VM_MIXEDMAP?
I want to make dummy driver to simulate your case.
It would be very helpful to implement/test pte-mapped non-lru page
migration feature. That's why I ask now.
> to note here is that the page->mapping eventually points to struct address_space
> (file->f_mapping) which belongs to the character device file (created using mknod)
> which we are using for establishing the mmap() regions in the user space.
>
> Now as per this new framework, all the page's are to be made __SetPageMovable before
> passing the list down to migrate_pages(). Now __SetPageMovable() takes *new* struct
> address_space as an argument and replaces the existing page->mapping. Now thats the
> problem, we have lost all our connection to the existing file RMAP information. This
We could change __SetPageMovable doesn't need mapping argument.
Instead, it just marks PAGE_MAPPING_MOVABLE into page->mapping.
For that, user should take care of setting page->mapping earlier than
marking the flag.
> stands as a problem when we try to migrate these non LRU pages which are PTE mapped.
> The rmap_walk_file() never finds them in the VMA, skips all the migrate PTE steps and
> then the migration eventually fails.
>
> Seems like assigning a new struct address_space to the page through __SetPageMovable()
> is the source of the problem. Can it take the existing (file->f_mapping) as an argument
We can set existing file->f_mapping under the page_lock.
> in there ? Sure, but then can we override file system generic ->isolate(), ->putback(),
I don't get it. Why does it override file system generic functions?
> ->migratepages() functions ? I dont think so. I am sure, there must be some work around
> to fix this problem for the driver. But we need to rethink this framework from supporting
> these mapped non LRU pages point of view.
>
> I might be missing something here, feel free to point out.
>
> - Anshuman
>
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
