On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 11:26:45AM +0530, Anshuman Khandual wrote:
<snip>
> >> Did you get a chance to test the driver out ? I am still concerned about how to
> >> handle the struct address_space override problem within the struct page.
> >
> > Hi Anshuman,
> >
> > Slow but I am working on that. :) However, as I said, I want to do it
>
> I really appreciate. Was just curious about the problem and any potential
> solution we can look into.
>
> > after soft landing of current non-lru-no-mapped page migration to solve
> > current real field issues.
>
> yeah it makes sense.
>
> >
> > About the overriding problem of non-lru-mapped-page, I implemented dummy
> > driver as miscellaneous device and in test_mmap(file_operations.mmap),
> > I changed a_ops with my address_space_operations.
> >
> > int test_mmap(struct file *filp, struct vm_area_struct *vma)
> > {
> > filp->f_mapping->a_ops = &test_aops;
> > vma->vm_ops = &test_vm_ops;
> > vma->vm_private_data = filp->private_data;
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
>
> Okay.
>
> > test_aops should have *set_page_dirty* overriding.
> >
> > static int test_set_pag_dirty(struct page *page)
> > {
> > if (!PageDirty(page))
> > SetPageDirty*page);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > Otherwise, it goes BUG_ON during radix tree operation because
> > currently try_to_unmap is designed for file-lru pages which lives
> > in page cache so it propagates page table dirty bit to PG_dirty flag
> > of struct page by set_page_dirty. And set_page_dirty want to mark
> > dirty tag in radix tree node but it's character driver so the page
> > cache doesn't have it. That's why we encounter BUG_ON in radix tree
> > operation. Anyway, to test, I implemented set_page_dirty in my dummy
> > driver.
>
> Okay and the above test_set_page_dirty() example is sufficient ?
I guess just return 0 is sufficeint without any dirting a page.
>
> >
> > With only that, it doesn't work because I need to modify migrate.c to
> > work non-lru-mapped-page and changing PG_isolated flag which is
> > override of PG_reclaim which is cleared in set_page_dirty.
>
> Got it, so what changes you did ? Implemented PG_isolated differently
> not by overriding PG_reclaim or something else ? Yes set_page_dirty
> indeed clears the PG_reclaim flag.
>
> >
> > With that, it seems to work. But I'm not saying it's right model now
>
> So the mapped pages migration was successful ? Even after overloading
> filp->f_mapping->a_ops = &test_aops, we still have the RMAP information
> intact with filp->f_mappinp pointed interval tree. But would really like
> to see the code changes.
>
> > for device drivers. In runtime, replacing filp->f_mapping->a_ops with
> > custom a_ops of own driver seems to be hacky to me.
>
> Yeah I thought so.
>
> > So, I'm considering now new pseudo fs "movable_inode" which will
> > support
> >
> > struct file *movable_inode_getfile(const char *name,
> > const struct file_operations *fop,
> > const struct address_space_operations *a_ops)
> > {
> > struct path path;
> > struct qstr this;
> > struct inode *inode;
> > struct super_block *sb;
> >
> > this.name = name;
> > this.len = strlen(name);
> > this.hash = 0;
> > sb = movable_mnt.mnt_sb;
> > patch.denty = d_alloc_pseudo(movable_inode_mnt->mnt_sb, &this);
> > patch.mnt = mntget(movable_inode_mnt);
> >
> > inode = new_inode(sb);
> > ..
> > ..
> > inode->i_mapping->a_ops = a_ops;
> > d_instantiate(path.dentry, inode);
> >
> > return alloc_file(&path, FMODE_WRITE | FMODE_READ, f_op);
> > }
> >
> > And in our driver, we can change vma->vm_file with new one.
> >
> > int test_mmap(struct file *filp, struct vm_area_structd *vma)
> > {
> > struct file *newfile = movable_inode_getfile("[test"],
> > filep->f_op, &test_aops);
> > vma->vm_file = newfile;
> > ..
> > ..
> > }
> >
> > When I read mmap_region in mm/mmap.c, it's reasonable usecase
> > which dirver's mmap changes vma->vm_file with own file.
>
> I will look into these details.
>
> > Anyway, it needs many subtle changes in mm/vfs/driver side so
> > need to review from each maintainers related subsystem so I
> > want to not be hurry.
>
> Sure, makes sense. Mean while it will be really great if you could share
> your code changes as described above, so that I can try them out.
>
It's almost done for draft version and I'm doing stress test now and
fortunately, doesn't see the problem until now.
I will send you when I'm ready.
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
