On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:04:26AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:40:09AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > HMM mirror is a device driver helpers to mirror range of virtual address.
> > It means that the process jobs running on the device can access the same
> > virtual address as the CPU threads of that process. This patch adds support
> > for mirroring mapping of file that are on a DAX block device (ie range of
> > virtual address that is an mmap of a file in a filesystem on a DAX block
> > device). There is no reason to not support such case when mirroring virtual
> > address on a device.
> >
> > Note that unlike GUP code we do not take page reference hence when we
> > back-off we have nothing to undo.
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - improved commit message
> > - squashed: Arnd Bergmann: fix unused variable warning in hmm_vma_walk_pud
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > mm/hmm.c | 132 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> > 1 file changed, 111 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
> > index 64a33770813b..ce33151c6832 100644
> > --- a/mm/hmm.c
> > +++ b/mm/hmm.c
> > @@ -325,6 +325,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(hmm_mirror_unregister);
> >
> > struct hmm_vma_walk {
> > struct hmm_range *range;
> > + struct dev_pagemap *pgmap;
> > unsigned long last;
> > bool fault;
> > bool block;
> > @@ -499,6 +500,15 @@ static inline uint64_t pmd_to_hmm_pfn_flags(struct hmm_range *range, pmd_t pmd)
> > range->flags[HMM_PFN_VALID];
> > }
> >
> > +static inline uint64_t pud_to_hmm_pfn_flags(struct hmm_range *range, pud_t pud)
> > +{
> > + if (!pud_present(pud))
> > + return 0;
> > + return pud_write(pud) ? range->flags[HMM_PFN_VALID] |
> > + range->flags[HMM_PFN_WRITE] :
> > + range->flags[HMM_PFN_VALID];
> > +}
> > +
> > static int hmm_vma_handle_pmd(struct mm_walk *walk,
> > unsigned long addr,
> > unsigned long end,
> > @@ -520,8 +530,19 @@ static int hmm_vma_handle_pmd(struct mm_walk *walk,
> > return hmm_vma_walk_hole_(addr, end, fault, write_fault, walk);
> >
> > pfn = pmd_pfn(pmd) + pte_index(addr);
> > - for (i = 0; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE, i++, pfn++)
> > + for (i = 0; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE, i++, pfn++) {
> > + if (pmd_devmap(pmd)) {
> > + hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pfn,
> > + hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> > + if (unlikely(!hmm_vma_walk->pgmap))
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + }
> > pfns[i] = hmm_pfn_from_pfn(range, pfn) | cpu_flags;
> > + }
> > + if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
> > + put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> > + hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
> > + }
> > hmm_vma_walk->last = end;
> > return 0;
> > }
> > @@ -608,10 +629,24 @@ static int hmm_vma_handle_pte(struct mm_walk *walk, unsigned long addr,
> > if (fault || write_fault)
> > goto fault;
> >
> > + if (pte_devmap(pte)) {
> > + hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pte_pfn(pte),
> > + hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> > + if (unlikely(!hmm_vma_walk->pgmap))
> > + return -EBUSY;
> > + } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_PTE_SPECIAL) && pte_special(pte)) {
> > + *pfn = range->values[HMM_PFN_SPECIAL];
> > + return -EFAULT;
> > + }
> > +
> > *pfn = hmm_pfn_from_pfn(range, pte_pfn(pte)) | cpu_flags;
>
> <tag>
>
> > return 0;
> >
> > fault:
> > + if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
> > + put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> > + hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
> > + }
> > pte_unmap(ptep);
> > /* Fault any virtual address we were asked to fault */
> > return hmm_vma_walk_hole_(addr, end, fault, write_fault, walk);
> > @@ -699,12 +734,83 @@ static int hmm_vma_walk_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp,
> > return r;
> > }
> > }
> > + if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
> > + put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
> > + hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
> > + }
>
>
> Why is this here and not in hmm_vma_handle_pte()? Unless I'm just getting
> tired this is the corresponding put when hmm_vma_handle_pte() returns 0 above
> at <tag> above.
This is because get_dev_pagemap() optimize away the reference getting
if we already hold a reference on the correct dev_pagemap. So if we
were releasing the reference within hmm_vma_handle_pte() then we would
loose the get_dev_pagemap() optimization.
Cheers,
Jérôme
