On 07.08.24 11:15, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
On Fri, 2 Aug 2024 17:55:13 +0200
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Looking into a way of moving the last folio_likely_mapped_shared() call
in add_folio_for_migration() under the PTL, I found myself removing
follow_page(). This paves the way for cleaning up all the FOLL_, follow_*
terminology to just be called "GUP" nowadays.
The new page table walker will lookup a mapped folio and return to the
caller with the PTL held, such that the folio cannot get unmapped
concurrently. Callers can then conditionally decide whether they really
want to take a short-term folio reference or whether the can simply
unlock the PTL and be done with it.
folio_walk is similar to page_vma_mapped_walk(), except that we don't know
the folio we want to walk to and that we are only walking to exactly one
PTE/PMD/PUD.
folio_walk provides access to the pte/pmd/pud (and the referenced folio
page because things like KSM need that), however, as part of this series
no page table modifications are performed by users.
We might be able to convert some other walk_page_range() users that really
only walk to one address, such as DAMON with
damon_mkold_ops/damon_young_ops. It might make sense to extend folio_walk
in the future to optionally fault in a folio (if applicable), such that we
can replace some get_user_pages() users that really only want to lookup
a single page/folio under PTL without unconditionally grabbing a folio
reference.
I have plans to extend the approach to a range walker that will try
batching various page table entries (not just folio pages) to be a better
replace for walk_page_range() -- and users will be able to opt in which
type of page table entries they want to process -- but that will require
more work and more thoughts.
KSM seems to work just fine (ksm_functional_tests selftests) and
move_pages seems to work (migration selftest). I tested the leaf
implementation excessively using various hugetlb sizes (64K, 2M, 32M, 1G)
on arm64 using move_pages and did some more testing on x86-64. Cross
compiled on a bunch of architectures.
I am not able to test the s390x Secure Execution changes, unfortunately.
The whole series looks good to me, but I do not feel confident enough
about all the folio details to actually r-b any of the non-s390
patches. (I do have a few questions, though)
As for the s390 patches: they look fine. I have tested the series on
s390 and nothing caught fire.
We will be able to get more CI coverage once this lands in -next.
Thanks for the review! Note that it's already in -next.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
