On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 10:45 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxx>
> > 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> 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.
_______________________________________________
dri-devel mailing list
dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
