Message-ID: <8B561EC9A4D13649A62CF60D3A8E8CB28C2DBE7A@dggeml524-mbx.china.huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 28 Aug 2020 09:23:08 +0000
From:   "Maoming (maoming, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)" 
        <maoming.maoming@...wei.com>
To:     Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        "Zhoujian (jay)" <jianjay.zhou@...wei.com>,
        "Huangweidong (C)" <weidong.huang@...wei.com>,
        "aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        wangyunjian <wangyunjian@...wei.com>
Subject: 答复: 答复: [PATCH V2] vfio dma_map/unmap: optimized for hugetlbfs pages


On Wed, Aug 26, 2020 at 01:56:43PM +0000, Maoming (maoming, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) wrote:
> > +	/*
> > +	 * Unlike THP, the splitting should not happen for hugetlb pages.
> > +	 * Since PG_reserved is not relevant for compound pages, and the pfn of
> > +	 * PAGE_SIZE page which in hugetlb pages is valid,
> > +	 * it is not necessary to check rsvd for hugetlb pages.
> > +	 * We do not need to alloc pages because of vaddr and we can finish all
> > +	 * work by a single operation to the head page.
> > +	 */
> > +	atomic_add(contiguous_npage, compound_pincount_ptr(head));
> > +	page_ref_add(head, contiguous_npage);
> > +	mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(head), NR_FOLL_PIN_ACQUIRED, 
> > +contiguous_npage);
> 
> I think I asked this question in v1, but I didn't get any answer... So I'm trying again...
> 
> Could I ask why manual referencing of pages is done here rather than 
> using
> pin_user_pages_remote() just like what we've done with 
> vaddr_get_pfn(), and let
> try_grab_page() to do the page reference and accountings?
> 
> I feel like this at least is against the FOLL_PIN workflow of gup, because those FOLL_PIN paths were bypassed, afaict.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> My apologies for not answering your question.
> As I understand, pin_user_pages_remote() might spend much time.
> Because all PAGE_SIZE-pages in a hugetlb page are pinned one by one in pin_user_pages_remote() and try_grab_page().
> So I think maybe we can use these simple code to do all work.
> Am I wrong? And is there something else we can use? For example 
> :pin_user_pages_fast()

Yeah I can understand your concern, however so far it's not about the perf but correctness.  Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst tells us that we should always use pin_user_page*() APIs to pin DMA pages (with FOLL_LONGTERM).  That's something we should follow for now, otherwise the major logic of either FOLL_PIN or FULL_LONGTERM could be bypassed without being noticed.

I'm not sure whether the perf issue is a big one.  So have you tried the pin page APIs first and did some measurement?  There is indeed a tight loop in
follow_hugetlb_page() however not sure how much it'll affect VFIO_IOMMU_MAP_DMA in general.  Even if we want to do something, it seems to be more suitable to be done inside follow_hugetlb_page() rather than in vfio, imho.

Another comment is about the design of the whole patch - I think Alex commented on that too on the awkwardness on appending the hugetlbfs logic to the end of the existing logic.  Considering that current logic of vfio_pin_pages_remote() is "let's pin some pages as long as continuous", not sure whether we can make it into:

vfio_pin_pages_remote()
{
  if (PageHuge(first_page))
    vfio_pin_pages_hugetlbfs();
  else
    vfio_pin_pages_normal();
}

The thing is, if the 1st page is normal page, then the follow-up pages shouldn't normally be hugetlbfs pages so they won't be physically continuous.
Vice versa.  In other words, each call to vfio_pin_pages_remote() should only handle only one type of page after all.  So maybe we can diverge them at the beginning of the call directly.

--
Peter Xu





Thanks for your suggestions. I will fix it.
And I have another question.
In hugetlb_put_pfn(), I delete unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock() and use some simple code to put hugetlb pages.
Is this right?


/*
 * put pfns for a hugetlb page
 * @start:the PAGE_SIZE-page we start to put,can be any page in this hugetlb page
 * @npage:the number of PAGE_SIZE-pages need to put
 * @prot:IOMMU_READ/WRITE
 */
static int hugetlb_put_pfn(unsigned long start, unsigned int npage, int prot)
{
        struct page *page;
        struct page *head;

        if (!npage || !pfn_valid(start))
                return 0;

        page = pfn_to_page(start);
        if (!page || !PageHuge(page))
                return 0;
        head = compound_head(page);
        /*
         * The last page should be in this hugetlb page.
         * The number of putting pages should be equal to the number
         * of getting pages.So the hugepage pinned refcount and the normal
         * page refcount can not be smaller than npage.
         */
        if ((head != compound_head(pfn_to_page(start + npage - 1)))
                || (page_ref_count(head) < npage)
                || (compound_pincount(page) < npage))
                return 0;

        if ((prot & IOMMU_WRITE) && !PageDirty(page))
                set_page_dirty_lock(page);

        atomic_sub(npage, compound_pincount_ptr(head));
        if (page_ref_sub_and_test(head, npage))
                __put_page(head);

        mod_node_page_state(page_pgdat(head), NR_FOLL_PIN_RELEASED, npage);
        return 1;
}

Powered by blists - more mailing lists