[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4i=FL4f34H2_1mgWMk=UyyaXFaKPh5zJSnFNyN3cBoJhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2018 12:31:08 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Zhang Yi <yi.z.zhang@...ux.intel.com>,
Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@...el.com>,
"Zhang, Yu C" <yu.c.zhang@...el.com>,
Pankaj Gupta <pagupta@...hat.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 2/3] mm: Add support for exposing if dev_pagemap
supports refcount pinning
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:21 PM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 11:47 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:25 AM Alexander Duyck
> > <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add a means of exposing if a pagemap supports refcount pinning. I am doing
> > > this to expose if a given pagemap has backing struct pages that will allow
> > > for the reference count of the page to be incremented to lock the page
> > > into place.
> > >
> > > The KVM code already has several spots where it was trying to use a
> > > pfn_valid check combined with a PageReserved check to determien if it could
> > > take a reference on the page. I am adding this check so in the case of the
> > > page having the reserved flag checked we can check the pagemap for the page
> > > to determine if we might fall into the special DAX case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...ux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c | 2 ++
> > > include/linux/memremap.h | 5 ++++-
> > > include/linux/mm.h | 11 +++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
> > > index 6f22272e8d80..7a4a85bcf7f4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
> > > @@ -640,6 +640,8 @@ static int __nvdimm_setup_pfn(struct nd_pfn *nd_pfn, struct dev_pagemap *pgmap)
> > > } else
> > > return -ENXIO;
> > >
> > > + pgmap->support_refcount_pinning = true;
> > > +
> >
> > There should be no dev_pagemap instance instance where this isn't
> > true, so I'm missing why this is needed?
>
> I thought in the case of HMM there were instances where you couldn't
> pin the page, isn't there? Specifically I am thinking of the definition
> of MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC:
> Device memory that is cache coherent from device and CPU point of
> view. This is use on platform that have an advance system bus (like
> CAPI or CCIX). A driver can hotplug the device memory using
> ZONE_DEVICE and with that memory type. Any page of a process can be
> migrated to such memory. However no one should be allow to pin such
> memory so that it can always be evicted.
>
> It sounds like MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC and MMIO would want to fall into
> the same category here in order to allow a hot-plug event to remove the
> device and take the memory with it, or is my understanding on this not
> correct?
I don't understand how HMM expects to enforce no pinning, but in any
event it should always be the expectation an elevated reference count
on a page prevents that page from disappearing. Anything else is
broken.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists