[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <6442788.4vTCxPXJkl@leap>
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:14:30 +0200
From: "Fabio M. De Francesco" <fmdefrancesco@...il.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@....com>,
"Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@...radead.org>,
Will Deacon <will@...nel.org>,
Peter Collingbourne <pcc@...gle.com>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-doc@...r.kernel.org, outreachy@...ts.linux.dev,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 4/4] Documentation/vm: Rework "Temporary Virtual Mappings" section
On giovedì 28 aprile 2022 11:02:10 CEST Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> On 2022-04-27 20:38:21 [+0200], Fabio M. De Francesco wrote:
> > index e05bf5524174..c8aff448612b 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/vm/highmem.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/vm/highmem.rst
> > @@ -50,26 +50,78 @@ space when they use mm context tags.
> …
> >
> > -* kmap(). This permits a short duration mapping of a single page. It
needs
> > - global synchronization, but is amortized somewhat. It is also prone
to
> > - deadlocks when using in a nested fashion, and so it is not
recommended for
> > - new code.
> > + These mappings are thread-local and CPU-local (i.e., migration from
one CPU
> > + to another is disabled - this is why they are called "local"), but
they don't
> > + disable preemption.
>
> So if you replace this block with
>
> These mappings are thread-local and CPU-local meaning that the mapping
> can only be accessed from within this thread and the thread is bound
the
> CPU while the mapping is active. Even if the thread is preempted
(since
> preemption is never disabled by the function) the CPU can not be
> unplugged from the system via CPU-hotplug until the mapping is
disposed.
OK, I'm too wordy here :(
> The you could drop the latter block
>
> > It's valid to take pagefaults in a local kmap
region,
> > + unless the context in which the local mapping is acquired does not
allow it
> > + for other reasons.
>
> > + kmap_local_page() always returns a valid virtual address and it is
assumed
> > + that kunmap_local() will never fail.
>
> from here
>
> > + If a task holding local kmaps is preempted, the maps are removed on
context
> > + switch and restored when the task comes back on the CPU. The maps
are
> > + strictly thread-local and CPU-local, therefore it is guaranteed that
the
> > + task stays on the CPU and the CPU cannot be unplugged until the
local kmaps
> > + are released.
>
> to here since it mostly the same thing.
I agree, this is redundant.
>
> > + Nesting kmap_local_page() and kmap_atomic() mappings is allowed to a
certain
> > + extent (up to KMAP_TYPE_NR) but their invocations have to be
strictly ordered
> > + because the map implementation is stack based. See kmap_local_page
() kdocs
>
> kmap_local_page () => kmap_local_page()
Sure, it's just a typo.
> > + (included in the "Functions" section) for details on how to manage
nested
> > + mappings.
> >
> > * kmap_atomic(). This permits a very short duration mapping of a
single
> > page. Since the mapping is restricted to the CPU that issued it, it
> > performs well, but the issuing task is therefore required to stay on
that
> > CPU until it has finished, lest some other task displace its
mappings.
> >
> > - kmap_atomic() may also be used by interrupt contexts, since it is
does not
> > - sleep and the caller may not sleep until after kunmap_atomic() is
called.
> > + kmap_atomic() may also be used by interrupt contexts, since it does
not
> > + sleep and the callers too may not sleep until after kunmap_atomic()
is
> > + called.
> > +
> > + Each call of kmap_atomic() in the kernel creates a non-preemptible
section
> > + and disable pagefaults. This could be a source of unwanted latency,
so it
> > + should be only used if it is absolutely required, otherwise
kmap_local_page()
> > + should be used where it is feasible.
>
> I'm not keen about the "absolutely required" wording and "feasible".
> That said, the other pieces look good, thank you for the work.
I'll rewrite the last part of this sentence as it follows:
+ should be only used if it is required, otherwise kmap_local_page()
+ should be preferred.
Thank you so much for the time you have spent for reviewing and helping,
Fabio
Powered by blists - more mailing lists