Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Wed, Mar 6, 2019 at 1:18 AM Aneesh Kumar K.V
> <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 1:40 AM Oliver <oohall@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 28, 2019 at 7:35 PM Aneesh Kumar K.V
>> >> <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Add a flag to indicate the ability to do huge page dax mapping. On architecture
>> >> > like ppc64, the hypervisor can disable huge page support in the guest. In
>> >> > such a case, we should not enable huge page dax mapping. This patch adds
>> >> > a flag which the architecture code will update to indicate huge page
>> >> > dax mapping support.
>> >>
>> >> *groan*
>> >>
>> >> > Architectures mostly do transparent_hugepage_flag = 0; if they can't
>> >> > do hugepages. That also takes care of disabling dax hugepage mapping
>> >> > with this change.
>> >> >
>> >> > Without this patch we get the below error with kvm on ppc64.
>> >> >
>> >> > [ 118.849975] lpar: Failed hash pte insert with error -4
>> >> >
>> >> > NOTE: The patch also use
>> >> >
>> >> > echo never > /sys/kernel/mm/transparent_hugepage/enabled
>> >> > to disable dax huge page mapping.
>> >> >
>> >> > Signed-off-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> > ---
>> >> > TODO:
>> >> > * Add Fixes: tag
>> >> >
>> >> > include/linux/huge_mm.h | 4 +++-
>> >> > mm/huge_memory.c | 4 ++++
>> >> > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> >> > index 381e872bfde0..01ad5258545e 100644
>> >> > --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> >> > +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
>> >> > @@ -53,6 +53,7 @@ vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long addr,
>> >> > pud_t *pud, pfn_t pfn, bool write);
>> >> > enum transparent_hugepage_flag {
>> >> > TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_FLAG,
>> >> > + TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_DAX_FLAG,
>> >> > TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_REQ_MADV_FLAG,
>> >> > TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_DEFRAG_DIRECT_FLAG,
>> >> > TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_DEFRAG_KSWAPD_FLAG,
>> >> > @@ -111,7 +112,8 @@ static inline bool __transparent_hugepage_enabled(struct vm_area_struct *vma)
>> >> > if (transparent_hugepage_flags & (1 << TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_FLAG))
>> >> > return true;
>> >> >
>> >> > - if (vma_is_dax(vma))
>> >> > + if (vma_is_dax(vma) &&
>> >> > + (transparent_hugepage_flags & (1 << TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE_DAX_FLAG)))
>> >> > return true;
>> >>
>> >> Forcing PTE sized faults should be fine for fsdax, but it'll break
>> >> devdax. The devdax driver requires the fault size be >= the namespace
>> >> alignment since devdax tries to guarantee hugepage mappings will be
>> >> used and PMD alignment is the default. We can probably have devdax
>> >> fall back to the largest size the hypervisor has made available, but
>> >> it does run contrary to the design. Ah well, I suppose it's better off
>> >> being degraded rather than unusable.
>> >
>> > Given this is an explicit setting I think device-dax should explicitly
>> > fail to enable in the presence of this flag to preserve the
>> > application visible behavior.
>> >
>> > I.e. if device-dax was enabled after this setting was made then I
>> > think future faults should fail as well.
>>
>> Not sure I understood that. Now we are disabling the ability to map
>> pages as huge pages. I am now considering that this should not be
>> user configurable. Ie, this is something that platform can use to avoid
>> dax forcing huge page mapping, but if the architecture can enable huge
>> dax mapping, we should always default to using that.
>
> No, that's an application visible behavior regression. The side effect
> of this setting is that all huge-page configured device-dax instances
> must be disabled.
So if the device was created with a nd_pfn->align value of PMD_SIZE, that is
an indication that we would map the pages in PMD_SIZE?
Ok with that understanding, If the align value is not a supported
mapping size, we fail initializing the device.
>
>> Now w.r.t to failures, can device-dax do an opportunistic huge page
>> usage?
>
> device-dax explicitly disclaims the ability to do opportunistic mappings.
>
>> I haven't looked at the device-dax details fully yet. Do we make the
>> assumption of the mapping page size as a format w.r.t device-dax? Is that
>> derived from nd_pfn->align value?
>
> Correct.
>
>>
>> Here is what I am working on:
>> 1) If the platform doesn't support huge page and if the device superblock
>> indicated that it was created with huge page support, we fail the device
>> init.
>
> Ok.
>
>> 2) Now if we are creating a new namespace without huge page support in
>> the platform, then we force the align details to PAGE_SIZE. In such a
>> configuration when handling dax fault even with THP enabled during
>> the build, we should not try to use hugepage. This I think we can
>> achieve by using TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAEG_DAX_FLAG.
>
> How is this dynamic property communicated to the guest?
via device tree on powerpc. We have a device tree node indicating
supported page sizes.
>
>>
>> Also even if the user decided to not use THP, by
>> echo "never" > transparent_hugepage/enabled , we should continue to map
>> dax fault using huge page on platforms that can support huge pages.
>>
>> This still doesn't cover the details of a device-dax created with
>> PAGE_SIZE align later booted with a kernel that can do hugepage dax.How
>> should we handle that? That makes me think, this should be a VMA flag
>> which got derived from device config? May be use VM_HUGEPAGE to indicate
>> if device should use a hugepage mapping or not?
>
> device-dax configured with PAGE_SIZE always gets PAGE_SIZE mappings.
Now what will be page size used for mapping vmemmap? Architectures
possibly will use PMD_SIZE mapping if supported for vmemmap. Now a
device-dax with struct page in the device will have pfn reserve area aligned
to PAGE_SIZE with the above example? We can't map that using
PMD_SIZE page size?
-aneesh
