On Mon, Jul 17, 2023 at 7:36 AM Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> >>>> +static int alloc_anon_folio(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio **folio)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> + int i;
> >>>> + gfp_t gfp;
> >>>> + pte_t *pte;
> >>>> + unsigned long addr;
> >>>> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> >>>> + int prefer = anon_folio_order(vma);
> >>>> + int orders[] = {
> >>>> + prefer,
> >>>> + prefer > PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER ? PAGE_ALLOC_COSTLY_ORDER : 0,
> >>>> + 0,
> >>>> + };
> >>>> +
> >>>> + *folio = NULL;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (vmf_orig_pte_uffd_wp(vmf))
> >>>> + goto fallback;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (i = 0; orders[i]; i++) {
> >>>> + addr = ALIGN_DOWN(vmf->address, PAGE_SIZE << orders[i]);
> >>>> + if (addr >= vma->vm_start &&
> >>>> + addr + (PAGE_SIZE << orders[i]) <= vma->vm_end)
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (!orders[i])
> >>>> + goto fallback;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + pte = pte_offset_map(vmf->pmd, vmf->address & PMD_MASK);
> >>>> + if (!pte)
> >>>> + return -EAGAIN;
> >>>
> >>> It would be a bug if this happens. So probably -EINVAL?
> >>
> >> Not sure what you mean? Hugh Dickins' series that went into v6.5-rc1 makes it
> >> possible for pte_offset_map() to fail (if I understood correctly) and we have to
> >> handle this. The intent is that we will return from the fault without making any
> >> change, then we will refault and try again.
> >
> > Thanks for checking that -- it's very relevant. One detail is that
> > that series doesn't affect anon. IOW, collapsing PTEs into a PMD can't
> > happen while we are holding mmap_lock for read here, and therefore,
> > the race that could cause pte_offset_map() on shmem/file PTEs to fail
> > doesn't apply here.
>
> But Hugh's patches have changed do_anonymous_page() to handle failure from
> pte_offset_map_lock(). So I was just following that pattern. If this really
> can't happen, then I'd rather WARN/BUG on it, and simplify alloc_anon_folio()'s
> prototype to just return a `struct folio *` (and if it's null that means ENOMEM).
>
> Hugh, perhaps you can comment?
>
> As an aside, it was my understanding from LWN, that we are now using a per-VMA
> lock so presumably we don't hold mmap_lock for read here? Or perhaps that only
> applies to file-backed memory?
For anon under mmap_lock for read:
1. pte_offset_map[_lock]() fails when a parallel PF changes PMD from
none to leaf.
2. changing PMD from non-leaf to leaf is a bug. See the comments in
the "else" branch in handle_pte_fault().
So for do_anonymous_page(), there is only one case
pte_offset_map[_lock]() can fail. For the code above, this case was
ruled out by vmf_orig_pte_uffd_wp().
Checking the return value from pte_offset_map[_lock]() is a good
practice. What I'm saying is that -EAGAIN would mislead people to
think, in our case, !pte is legitimate, and hence the suggestion of
replacing it with -EINVAL.
No BUG_ON() please. As I've previously mentioned, it's against
Documentation/process/coding-style.rst.
> > +Hugh Dickins for further consultation if you need it.
> >
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (; orders[i]; i++) {
> >>>> + addr = ALIGN_DOWN(vmf->address, PAGE_SIZE << orders[i]);
> >>>> + vmf->pte = pte + pte_index(addr);
> >>>> + if (!vmf_pte_range_changed(vmf, 1 << orders[i]))
> >>>> + break;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> + vmf->pte = NULL;
> >>>> + pte_unmap(pte);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + gfp = vma_thp_gfp_mask(vma);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + for (; orders[i]; i++) {
> >>>> + addr = ALIGN_DOWN(vmf->address, PAGE_SIZE << orders[i]);
> >>>> + *folio = vma_alloc_folio(gfp, orders[i], vma, addr, true);
> >>>> + if (*folio) {
> >>>> + clear_huge_page(&(*folio)->page, addr, 1 << orders[i]);
> >>>> + return 0;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> +fallback:
> >>>> + *folio = vma_alloc_zeroed_movable_folio(vma, vmf->address);
> >>>> + return *folio ? 0 : -ENOMEM;
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +#else
> >>>> +static inline int alloc_anon_folio(struct vm_fault *vmf, struct folio **folio)
> >>>
> >>> Drop "inline" (it doesn't do anything in .c).
> >>
> >> There are 38 instances of inline in memory.c alone, so looks like a well used
> >> convention, even if the compiler may choose to ignore. Perhaps you can educate
> >> me; what's the benefit of dropping it?
> >
> > I'll let Willy and Andrew educate both of us :)
> >
> > +Matthew Wilcox +Andrew Morton please. Thank you.
> >
> >>> The rest looks good to me.
> >>
> >> Great - just incase it wasn't obvious, I decided not to overwrite vmf->address
> >> with the aligned version, as you suggested
> >
> > Yes, I've noticed. Not overwriting has its own merits for sure.
> >
> >> for 2 reasons; 1) address is const
> >> in the struct, so would have had to change that. 2) there is a uffd path that
> >> can be taken after the vmf->address fixup would have occured and the path
> >> consumes that member, so it would have had to be un-fixed-up making it more
> >> messy than the way I opted for.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the quick review as always!
>
