On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 09:20:36AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 02:55:31PM +0000, Weiny, Ira wrote:
> > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 11:04:18AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:49:29PM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 09:08:33AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > > > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 07:13:13AM -0700, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:37:45AM +0800, Huang Shijie wrote:
> > > > > > > > The root cause is that sg_alloc_table_from_pages() requires
> > > > > > > > the page order to keep the same as it used in the user space,
> > > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > get_user_pages_fast() will mess it up.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't understand how get_user_pages_fast() can return the
> > > > > > > pages in a different order in the array from the order they appear in
> > > userspace.
> > > > > > > Can you explain?
> > > > > > Please see the code in gup.c:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
> > > > > > unsigned int gup_flags, struct page **pages)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > .......
> > > > > > if (gup_fast_permitted(start, nr_pages)) {
> > > > > > local_irq_disable();
> > > > > > gup_pgd_range(addr, end, gup_flags, pages, &nr);
> > > // The @pages array maybe filled at the first time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Right ... but if it's not filled entirely, it will be filled
> > > > > part-way, and then we stop.
> > > > >
> > > > > > local_irq_enable();
> > > > > > ret = nr;
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > .......
> > > > > > if (nr < nr_pages) {
> > > > > > /* Try to get the remaining pages with
> > > get_user_pages */
> > > > > > start += nr << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > > > > > pages += nr; // The
> > > @pages is moved forward.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes, to the point where gup_pgd_range() stopped.
> > > > >
> > > > > > if (gup_flags & FOLL_LONGTERM) {
> > > > > > down_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
> > > > > > ret = __gup_longterm_locked(current,
> > > current->mm, // The @pages maybe filled at the second time
> > > > >
> > > > > Right.
> > > > >
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > * retain FAULT_FOLL_ALLOW_RETRY
> > > optimization if
> > > > > > * possible
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > ret = get_user_pages_unlocked(start,
> > > nr_pages - nr, // The @pages maybe filled at the second time.
> > > > > > pages, gup_flags);
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. But they'll be in the same order.
> > > > >
> > > > > > BTW, I do not know why we mess up the page order. It maybe used in
> > > some special case.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm not discounting the possibility that you've found a bug.
> > > > > But documenting that a bug exists is not the solution; the solution
> > > > > is fixing the bug.
> > > > I do not think it is a bug :)
> > > >
> > > > If we use the get_user_pages_unlocked(), DMA is okay, such as:
> > > > ....
> > > > get_user_pages_unlocked()
> > > > sg_alloc_table_from_pages()
> > > > .....
> > > >
> > > > I think the comment is not accurate enough. So just add more comments,
> > > > and tell the driver users how to use the GUPs.
> > >
> > > gup_fast() and gup_unlocked() should return the pages in the same order.
> > > If they do not, then it is a bug.
> >
> > Is there a reproducer for this? Or do you have some debug output which shows this problem?
> Is Matthew right?
>
> " gup_fast() and gup_unlocked() should return the pages in the same order.
> If they do not, then it is a bug."
Yes I think he is...
Ira
>
> If Matthew is right,
> I need more time to debug the DMA issue...
>
>
> Thanks
> Huang Shijie
>
>
> >
> > Ira
> >
>
