On 12/12/18 2:04 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 01:56:00PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 12/12/18 1:30 PM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 08:27:35AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 7:03 AM Jerome Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Dec 10, 2018 at 11:28:46AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri 07-12-18 21:24:46, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>>>>>>> Another crazy idea, why not treating GUP as another mapping of the page
>>>>>>> and caller of GUP would have to provide either a fake anon_vma struct or
>>>>>>> a fake vma struct (or both for PRIVATE mapping of a file where you can
>>>>>>> have a mix of both private and file page thus only if it is a read only
>>>>>>> GUP) that would get added to the list of existing mapping.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the flow would be:
>>>>>>> somefunction_thatuse_gup()
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> GUP(_fast)(vma, ..., fake_anon, fake_vma);
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GUP(vma, ..., fake_anon, fake_vma)
>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>> if (vma->flags == ANON) {
>>>>>>> // Add the fake anon vma to the anon vma chain as a child
>>>>>>> // of current vma
>>>>>>> } else {
>>>>>>> // Add the fake vma to the mapping tree
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> // The existing GUP except that now it inc mapcount and not
>>>>>>> // refcount
>>>>>>> GUP_old(..., &nanonymous, &nfiles);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> atomic_add(&fake_anon->refcount, nanonymous);
>>>>>>> atomic_add(&fake_vma->refcount, nfiles);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> return nanonymous + nfiles;
>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks for your idea! This is actually something like I was suggesting back
>>>>>> at LSF/MM in Deer Valley. There were two downsides to this I remember
>>>>>> people pointing out:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1) This cannot really work with __get_user_pages_fast(). You're not allowed
>>>>>> to get necessary locks to insert new entry into the VMA tree in that
>>>>>> context. So essentially we'd loose get_user_pages_fast() functionality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2) The overhead e.g. for direct IO may be noticeable. You need to allocate
>>>>>> the fake tracking VMA, get VMA interval tree lock, insert into the tree.
>>>>>> Then on IO completion you need to queue work to unpin the pages again as you
>>>>>> cannot remove the fake VMA directly from interrupt context where the IO is
>>>>>> completed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are right that the cost could be amortized if gup() is called for
>>>>>> multiple consecutive pages however for small IOs there's no help...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So this approach doesn't look like a win to me over using counter in struct
>>>>>> page and I'd rather try looking into squeezing HMM public page usage of
>>>>>> struct page so that we can fit that gup counter there as well. I know that
>>>>>> it may be easier said than done...
>>>>>
>>>>> So i want back to the drawing board and first i would like to ascertain
>>>>> that we all agree on what the objectives are:
>>>>>
>>>>> [O1] Avoid write back from a page still being written by either a
>>>>> device or some direct I/O or any other existing user of GUP.
>>>>> This would avoid possible file system corruption.
>>>>>
>>>>> [O2] Avoid crash when set_page_dirty() is call on a page that is
>>>>> considered clean by core mm (buffer head have been remove and
>>>>> with some file system this turns into an ugly mess).
>>>>>
>>>>> [O3] DAX and the device block problems, ie with DAX the page map in
>>>>> userspace is the same as the block (persistent memory) and no
>>>>> filesystem nor block device understand page as block or pinned
>>>>> block.
>>>>>
>>>>> For [O3] i don't think any pin count would help in anyway. I believe
>>>>> that the current long term GUP API that does not allow GUP of DAX is
>>>>> the only sane solution for now.
>>>>
>>>> No, that's not a sane solution, it's an emergency hack.
>>>>
>>>>> The real fix would be to teach file-
>>>>> system about DAX/pinned block so that a pinned block is not reuse
>>>>> by filesystem.
>>>>
>>>> We already have taught filesystems about pinned dax pages, see
>>>> dax_layout_busy_page(). As much as possible I want to eliminate the
>>>> concept of "dax pages" as a special case that gets sprinkled
>>>> throughout the mm.
>>>
>>> So thinking on O3 issues what about leveraging the recent change i
>>> did to mmu notifier. Add a event for truncate or any other file
>>> event that need to invalidate the file->page for a range of offset.
>>>
>>> Add mmu notifier listener to GUP user (except direct I/O) so that
>>> they invalidate they hardware mapping or switch the hardware mapping
>>> to use a crappy page. When such event happens what ever user do to
>>> the page through that driver is broken anyway. So it is better to
>>> be loud about it then trying to make it pass under the radar.
>>>
>>> This will put the burden on broken user and allow you to properly
>>> recycle your DAX page.
>>>
>>> Think of it as revoke through mmu notifier.
>>>
>>> So patchset would be:
>>> enum mmu_notifier_event {
>>> + MMU_NOTIFY_TRUNCATE,
>>> };
>>>
>>> + Change truncate code path to emit MMU_NOTIFY_TRUNCATE
>>>
>>
>> That part looks good.
>>
>>> Then for each user of GUP (except direct I/O or other very short
>>> term GUP):
>>
>> but, why is there a difference between how we handle long- and
>> short-term callers? Aren't we just leaving a harder-to-reproduce race
>> condition, if we ignore the short-term gup callers?
>>
>> So, how does activity (including direct IO and other short-term callers)
>> get quiesced (stopped, and guaranteed not to restart or continue), so
>> that truncate or umount can continue on?
>
> The fs would delay block reuse to after refcount is gone so it would
> wait for that. It is ok to do that only for short term user in case of
> direct I/O this should really not happen as it means that the application
> is doing something really stupid. So the waiting on short term user
> would be a rare event.
OK, I think that sounds like there are no race conditions left.
>
>
>>> Patch 1: register mmu notifier
>>> Patch 2: listen to MMU_NOTIFY_TRUNCATE and MMU_NOTIFY_UNMAP
>>> when that happens update the device page table or
>>> usage to point to a crappy page and do put_user_page
>>> on all previously held page
>>
>> Minor point, this sequence should be done within a wrapper around existing
>> get_user_pages(), such as get_user_pages_revokable() or something.
>
> No we want to teach everyone to abide by the rules, if we add yet another
> GUP function prototype people will use the one where they don;t have to
> say they abide by the rules. It is time we advertise the fact that GUP
> should not be use willy nilly for anything without worrying about the
> implication it has :)
Well, the best way to do that is to provide a named function call that
implements the rules. That also makes it easy to grep around and see which
call sites still need upgrades, and which don't.
>
> So i would rather see a consolidation in the number of GUP prototype we
> have than yet another one.
We could eventually get rid of the older GUP prototypes, once we're done
converting. Having a new, named function call will *without question* make
the call site conversion go much easier, and the end result is also better:
the common code is in a central function, rather than being at all the call
sites.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
