[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2019 21:53:45 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 23/25] mm/gup: track FOLL_PIN pages
On 12/11/19 3:28 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
...
>
> The patch looks mostly good to me now. Just a few smaller comments below.
>
>> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
>> Suggested-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
>> Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>
>
> I think you inherited here the Reviewed-by tags from the "add flags" patch
> you've merged into this one but that's not really fair since this patch
> does much more... In particular I didn't give my Reviewed-by tag for this
> patch yet.
OK, I've removed those reviewed-by's. (I felt bad about dropping them, after
people had devoted time to reviewing, but I do see that it's wrong to imply
that they've reviewed this much much larger thing.)
...
>
> I somewhat wonder about the asymmetry of try_grab_compound_head() vs
> try_grab_page() in the treatment of 'flags'. How costly would it be to make
> them symmetric (i.e., either set FOLL_GET for try_grab_compound_head()
> callers or make sure one of FOLL_GET, FOLL_PIN is set for try_grab_page())?
>
> Because this difference looks like a subtle catch in the long run...
Done. It is only a modest code-level change, at least the way I've done it, which is
setting FOLL_GET for try_grab_compound_head(). In order to do that, I set
it at the top of the internal gup fast calling stacks, which is actually a good
design anyway: gup fast is logically doing FOLL_GET in all cases. So setting
the flag internally is accurate and consistent with the overall design.
> ...
>
>> @@ -1522,8 +1536,8 @@ struct page *follow_trans_huge_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> skip_mlock:
>> page += (addr & ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageCompound(page) && !is_zone_device_page(page), page);
>> - if (flags & FOLL_GET)
>> - get_page(page);
>> + if (!try_grab_page(page, flags))
>> + page = ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);
>
> I think you need to also move the try_grab_page() earlier in the function.
> At this point the page may be marked as mlocked and you'd need to undo that
> in case try_grab_page() fails.
OK, I've moved it up, adding a "subpage" variable in order to make that work.
>
>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> index ac65bb5e38ac..0aab6fe0072f 100644
>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>> @@ -4356,7 +4356,13 @@ long follow_hugetlb_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>> same_page:
>> if (pages) {
>> pages[i] = mem_map_offset(page, pfn_offset);
>> - get_page(pages[i]);
>> + if (!try_grab_page(pages[i], flags)) {
>> + spin_unlock(ptl);
>> + remainder = 0;
>> + err = -ENOMEM;
>> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
>> + break;
>> + }
>> }
>
> This function does a refcount overflow check early so that it doesn't have
> to do try_get_page() here. So that check can be now removed when you do
> try_grab_page() here anyway since that early check seems to be just a tiny
> optimization AFAICT.
>
> Honza
>
Yes. I've removed it, good spot.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists