On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 23:04, Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 4/7/23 1:00 AM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 19:58, Muhammad Usama Anjum
> > <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
[...]
> >>>> + cur->len += n_pages;
> >>>> + p->found_pages += n_pages;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (p->max_pages && (p->found_pages == p->max_pages))
> >>>> + return PM_SCAN_FOUND_MAX_PAGES;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!p->vec_index || ((p->vec_index + 1) < p->vec_len)) {
> >>>
> >>> It looks that `if (p->vec_index < p->vec_len)` is enough here - if we
> >>> have vec_len == 0 here, then we'd not fit the entry in the userspace
> >>> buffer anyway. Am I missing something?
> >> No. I'd explained it with diagram last time:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/3c8d9ea0-1382-be0c-8dd2-d490eedd3b55@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> I'll add a concise comment here.
> >
> > So it seems, but I think the code changed a bit and maybe could be
> > simplified now? Since p->vec_len == 0 is currently not valid, the
> > field could count only the entries available in p->vec[] -- IOW: not
> > include p->cur in the count.
> I see. But this'll not work as we need to count p->cur to don't go above
> the maximum count, p->vec_size.
You can subtract 1 from p->vec_size before the page walk to account
for the buffer in `cur`.
[...]
> >>>> +static inline int pagemap_scan_deposit(struct pagemap_scan_private *p,
> >>>> + struct page_region __user *vec,
> >>>> + unsigned long *vec_index)
> >>>
> >>> ..._deposit() is used only in single place - please inline.
> >> It is already inline.
> >
> > Sorry. I mean: please paste the code in place of the single call.
> I've made it a separate function to make the code look better in the caller
> function and logically easier to understand. This function is ugly.
> do_pagemap_scan() is also already very long function with lots of things
> happening. If you still insist, I'll remove this function.
Please do remove - it will make the copy to userspace code all neatly together.
[...]
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + if (is_written && PM_SCAN_OP_IS_WP(p) &&
> >>>> + ((end - start < HPAGE_SIZE) ||
> >>>> + (p->max_pages &&
> >>>> + (p->max_pages - p->found_pages) < n_pages))) {
> >>>> +
> >>>> + split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, start);
> >>>> + goto process_smaller_pages;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (p->max_pages &&
> >>>> + p->found_pages + n_pages > p->max_pages)
> >>>> + n_pages = p->max_pages - p->found_pages;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + ret = pagemap_scan_output(is_written, is_file, is_present,
> >>>> + is_swap, p, start, n_pages);
> >>>> + if (ret < 0)
> >>>> + return ret;
> >
> > So let's simplify this:
> >
> > if (p->max_pages && n_pages > max_pages - found_pages)
> > n_pages = max_pages - found_pages;
> >
> > if (is_written && DO_WP && n_pages != HPAGE_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE) {
> > split_thp();
> > goto process_smaller_pages;
> > }
> Clever!! This looks very sleek.
>
> >
> > BTW, THP handling could be extracted to a function that would return
> > -EAGAIN if it has split the page or it wasn't a THP -- and that would
> > mean `goto process_smaller_pages`.
> Other functions in this file handle the THP in this same way. So it feels
> like more intuitive that we follow to same pattern in this file.
I'll leave it to you. Extracting THP support would avoid a goto and
#ifdef inside a function, though (and make the function smaller).
> >>>> + /*
> >>>> + * Allocate smaller buffer to get output from inside the page walk
> >>>> + * functions and walk page range in PAGEMAP_WALK_SIZE size chunks. As
> >>>> + * we want to return output to user in compact form where no two
> >>>> + * consecutive regions should be continuous and have the same flags.
> >>>> + * So store the latest element in p.cur between different walks and
> >>>> + * store the p.cur at the end of the walk to the user buffer.
> >>>> + */
> >>>> + p.vec = kmalloc_array(p.vec_len, sizeof(struct page_region),
> >>>> + GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>> + if (!p.vec)
> >>>> + return -ENOMEM;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + walk_start = walk_end = start;
> >>>> + while (walk_end < end && !ret) {
> >>>
> >>> The loop will stop if a previous iteration returned ENOSPC (and the
> >>> error will be lost) - is it intended?
> >> It is intentional. -ENOSPC means that the user buffer is full even though
> >> there was more memory to walk over. We don't treat this error. So when
> >> buffer gets full, we stop walking over further as user buffer has gotten
> >> full and return as success.
> >
> > Thanks. What's the difference between -ENOSPC and
> > PM_SCAN_FOUND_MAX_PAGES? They seem to result in the same effect (code
> > flow).
> -ENOSPC --> user buffer has been filled completely
> PM_SCAN_FOUND_MAX_PAGES --> max_pages have been found, user buffer may
> still have more space
What is the difference in code behaviour when those two cases are
compared? (I'd expect none.)
Best Regards
Michał Mirosław
