[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210309194824.GE763132@xz-x1>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 14:48:24 -0500
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
"Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@...el.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] vfio/pci: make the vfio_pci_mmap_fault reentrant
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:26:07PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:47:39 -0500
> Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:40:04PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:29:51AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:46:09 -0400
> > > > Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:49:09AM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> > > > > > Hi guys:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks for the helpful comments, after rethinking the issue, I have proposed
> > > > > > the following change:
> > > > > > 1. follow_pte instead of follow_pfn.
> > > > >
> > > > > Still no on follow_pfn, you don't need it once you use vmf_insert_pfn
> > > >
> > > > vmf_insert_pfn() only solves the BUG_ON, follow_pte() is being used
> > > > here to determine whether the translation is already present to avoid
> > > > both duplicate work in inserting the translation and allocating a
> > > > duplicate vma tracking structure.
> > >
> > > Oh.. Doing something stateful in fault is not nice at all
> > >
> > > I would rather see __vfio_pci_add_vma() search the vma_list for dups
> > > than call follow_pfn/pte..
> >
> > It seems to me that searching vma list is still the simplest way to fix the
> > problem for the current code base. I see io_remap_pfn_range() is also used in
> > the new series - maybe that'll need to be moved to where PCI_COMMAND_MEMORY got
> > turned on/off in the new series (I just noticed remap_pfn_range modifies vma
> > flags..), as you suggested in the other email.
>
>
> In the new series, I think the fault handler becomes (untested):
>
> static vm_fault_t vfio_pci_mmap_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> {
> struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> struct vfio_pci_device *vdev = vma->vm_private_data;
> unsigned long base_pfn, pgoff;
> vm_fault_t ret = VM_FAULT_SIGBUS;
>
> if (vfio_pci_bar_vma_to_pfn(vma, &base_pfn))
> return ret;
>
> pgoff = (vmf->address - vma->vm_start) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
>
> down_read(&vdev->memory_lock);
>
> if (__vfio_pci_memory_enabled(vdev))
> ret = vmf_insert_pfn(vma, vmf->address, pgoff + base_pfn);
>
> up_read(&vdev->memory_lock);
>
> return ret;
> }
It's just that the initial MMIO access delay would be spread to the 1st access
of each mmio page access rather than using the previous pre-fault scheme. I
think an userspace cares the delay enough should pre-fault all pages anyway,
but just raise this up. Otherwise looks sane.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists