On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 10:24:37AM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.01.25 10:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > On 30.01.25 07:11, Alistair Popple wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:54:02PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > We require a writable PTE and only support anonymous folio: we can only
> > > > have exactly one PTE pointing at that page, which we can just lookup
> > > > using a folio walk, avoiding the rmap walk and the anon VMA lock.
> > > >
> > > > So let's stop doing an rmap walk and perform a folio walk instead, so we
> > > > can easily just modify a single PTE and avoid relying on rmap/mapcounts.
> > > >
> > > > We now effectively work on a single PTE instead of multiple PTEs of
> > > > a large folio, allowing for conversion of individual PTEs from
> > > > non-exclusive to device-exclusive -- note that the other way always
> > > > worked on single PTEs.
> > > >
> > > > We can drop the MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE MMU notifier call and document why
> > > > that is not required: GUP will already take care of the
> > > > MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE call if required (there is already a device-exclusive
> > > > entry) when not finding a present PTE and having to trigger a fault and
> > > > ending up in remove_device_exclusive_entry().
> > >
> > > I will have to look at this a bit more closely tomorrow but this doesn't seem
> > > right to me. We may be transitioning from a present PTE (ie. a writable
> > > anonymous mapping) to a non-present PTE (ie. a device-exclusive entry) and
> > > therefore any secondary processors (eg. other GPUs, iommus, etc.) will need to
> > > update their copies of the PTE. So I think the notifier call is needed.
> >
> > Then it is all very confusing:
Can't argue with that in hindsight :-)
> > "MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE: to signal a device driver that the device will no
> > longer have exclusive access to the page."
>
> So the second sentence actually describes the other condition. Likely we
> should make that clearer:
>
> --- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> +++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
> @@ -43,10 +43,11 @@ struct mmu_interval_notifier;
> * a device driver to possibly ignore the invalidation if the
> * owner field matches the driver's device private pgmap owner.
> *
> - * @MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE: to signal a device driver that the device will no
> - * longer have exclusive access to the page. When sent during creation of an
> - * exclusive range the owner will be initialised to the value provided by the
> - * caller of make_device_exclusive(), otherwise the owner will be NULL.
> + * @MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE: (1) to signal a device driver that the device will no
> + * longer have exclusive access to the page; and (2) to signal that a page will
> + * be made exclusive to a device. During (1), the owner will be NULL, during
> + * (2), the owner will be initialised to the value provided by the caller of
> + * make_device_exclusive().
Yes, I think that makes things clearer. Logically these are really two different
events though - I guess I didn't want to add another one at the time but I
wonder if we should just make them separate events rather than overloading them?
> */
> enum mmu_notifier_event {
> MMU_NOTIFY_UNMAP = 0,
>
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
