On Fri, Aug 09, 2024 at 12:09:09PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> @@ -1672,30 +1679,49 @@ static vm_fault_t vfio_pci_mmap_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> if (vdev->pm_runtime_engaged || !__vfio_pci_memory_enabled(vdev))
> goto out_unlock;
>
> - ret = vmf_insert_pfn(vma, vmf->address, pfn + pgoff);
> - if (ret & VM_FAULT_ERROR)
> - goto out_unlock;
> -
> - /*
> - * Pre-fault the remainder of the vma, abort further insertions and
> - * supress error if fault is encountered during pre-fault.
> - */
> - for (; addr < vma->vm_end; addr += PAGE_SIZE, pfn++) {
> - if (addr == vmf->address)
> - continue;
> -
> - if (vmf_insert_pfn(vma, addr, pfn) & VM_FAULT_ERROR)
> - break;
> + switch (order) {
> + case 0:
> + ret = vmf_insert_pfn(vma, vmf->address, pfn + pgoff);
> + break;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_PMD_PFNMAP
> + case PMD_ORDER:
> + ret = vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(vmf, __pfn_to_pfn_t(pfn + pgoff,
> + PFN_DEV), false);
> + break;
> +#endif
> +#ifdef CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_PUD_PFNMAP
> + case PUD_ORDER:
> + ret = vmf_insert_pfn_pud(vmf, __pfn_to_pfn_t(pfn + pgoff,
> + PFN_DEV), false);
> + break;
> +#endif
I feel like this switch should be in some general function?
vmf_insert_pfn_order(vmf, order, __pfn_to_pfn_t(pfn + pgoff, PFN_DEV), false);
No reason to expose every driver to this when you've already got a
nice contract to have the driver work on the passed in order.
What happens if the driver can't get a PFN that matches the requested
order?
Jason
