Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 06:43:45PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/19/19 5:08 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:57:52AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 06:06:55PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 08:23:46AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:14:16AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:47:24AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >>>>>> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 03:04:17PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:36:33PM -0800, john.hubbard@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >>>>>>>> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>>>>> [...]
> >>>>> Forgot to mention one thing, we had a discussion with Andrea and Jan
> >>>>> about set_page_dirty() and Andrea had the good idea of maybe doing
> >>>>> the set_page_dirty() at GUP time (when GUP with write) not when the
> >>>>> GUP user calls put_page(). We can do that by setting the dirty bit
> >>>>> in the pte for instance. They are few bonus of doing things that way:
> >>>>>     - amortize the cost of calling set_page_dirty() (ie one call for
> >>>>>       GUP and page_mkclean()
> >>>>>     - it is always safe to do so at GUP time (ie the pte has write
> >>>>>       permission and thus the page is in correct state)
> >>>>>     - safe from truncate race
> >>>>>     - no need to ever lock the page
> >>>>
> >>>> I seem to have missed this conversation, so please excuse me for
> >>>
> >>> The set_page_dirty() at GUP was in a private discussion (it started
> >>> on another topic and drifted away to set_page_dirty()).
> >>>
> >>>> asking a stupid question: if it's a file backed page, what prevents
> >>>> background writeback from cleaning the dirty page ~30s into a long
> >>>> term pin? i.e. I don't see anything in this proposal that prevents
> >>>> the page from being cleaned by writeback and putting us straight
> >>>> back into the situation where a long term RDMA is writing to a clean
> >>>> page....
> >>>
> >>> So this patchset does not solve this issue.
> >>
> >> OK, so it just kicks the can further down the road.
> >>
> >>>     [3..N] decide what to do for GUPed page, so far the plans seems
> >>>          to be to keep the page always dirty and never allow page
> >>>          write back to restore the page in a clean state. This does
> >>>          disable thing like COW and other fs feature but at least
> >>>          it seems to be the best thing we can do.
> >>
> >> So the plan for GUP vs writeback so far is "break fsync()"? :)
> >>
> >> We might need to work on that a bit more...
> > 
> > Sorry forgot to say that we still do write back using a bounce page
> > so that at least we write something to disk that is just a snapshot
> > of the GUPed page everytime writeback kicks in (so either through
> > radix tree dirty page write back or fsync or any other sync events).
> > So many little details that i forgot the big chunk :)
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Jérôme
> > 
> Dave, Jan, Jerome,
> Bounce pages for periodic data integrity still seem viable. But for the
> question of things like fsync or truncate, I think we were zeroing in
> on file leases as a nice building block.
> Can we revive the file lease discussion? By going all the way out to user
> space and requiring file leases to be coordinated at a high level in the
> software call chain, it seems like we could routinely avoid some of the
> worst conflicts that the kernel code has to resolve.
> For example:
> Process A
> =========
>     gets a lease on file_a that allows gup 
>         usage on a range within file_a
>     sets up writable DMA:
>         get_user_pages() on the file_a range
>         start DMA (independent hardware ops)
>             hw is reading and writing to range
>                                                     Process B
>                                                     =========
>                                                     truncate(file_a)
>                                                        ...
>                                                        __break_lease()
>     handle SIGIO from __break_lease
>          if unhandled, process gets killed
>          and put_user_pages should get called
>          at some point here
> ...and so this way, user space gets to decide the proper behavior,
> instead of leaving the kernel in the dark with an impossible decision
> (kill process A? Block process B? User space knows the preference,
> per app, but kernel does not.)

There is no need to kill anything here ... if truncate happens then
the GUP user is just GUPing page that do not correspond to anything
anymore. This is the current behavior and it is what GUP always has
been. By the time you get the page from GUP there is no garantee that
they correspond to anything.

If a device really want to mirror process address faithfully then the
hardware need to make little effort either have something like ATS/
PASID or be able to abide mmu notifier.

If we start blocking existing syscall just because someone is doing a
GUP we are opening a pandora box. It is not just truncate, it is a
whole range of syscall that deals with either file or virtual address.

The semantic of GUP is really the semantic of direct I/O and the
virtual address you are direct I/O-ing to/from and the rule there is:
do not do anything stupid to those virtual addresses while you are
doing direct I/O with them (no munmap, mremap, madvise, truncate, ...).

Same logic apply to file, when two process do thing to same file there
the kernel never get in the way of one process doing something the
other process did not expect. For instance one process mmaping the file
the other process truncating the file, if the first process try to access
the file through the mmap after the truncation it will get a sigbus.

So i believe best we could do is send a SIGBUS to the process that has
GUPed a range of a file that is being truncated this would match what
we do for CPU acces. There is no reason access through GUP should be
handled any differently.


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux