Date:   Fri, 7 Apr 2023 09:34:40 +0200
From:   Michał Mirosław <emmir@...gle.com>
To:     Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
Cc:     Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@...il.com>,
        Danylo Mocherniuk <mdanylo@...gle.com>,
        Paul Gofman <pgofman@...eweavers.com>,
        Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@...are.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@...nel.org>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@...il.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
        "Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        Yun Zhou <yun.zhou@...driver.com>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Alex Sierra <alex.sierra@....com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>,
        Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>,
        "Gustavo A . R . Silva" <gustavoars@...nel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, kernel@...labora.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 2/5] fs/proc/task_mmu: Implement IOCTL to get and
 optionally clear info about PTEs

On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 23:04, Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@...labora.com> wrote:
> On 4/7/23 1:00 AM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Apr 2023 at 19:58, Muhammad Usama Anjum
> > <usama.anjum@...labora.com> wrote:
[...]
> >>>> +               cur->len += n_pages;
> >>>> +               p->found_pages += n_pages;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +               if (p->max_pages && (p->found_pages == p->max_pages))
> >>>> +                       return PM_SCAN_FOUND_MAX_PAGES;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +               return 0;
> >>>> +       }
> >>>> +
> >>>> +       if (!p->vec_index || ((p->vec_index + 1) < p->vec_len)) {
> >>>
> >>> It looks that `if (p->vec_index < p->vec_len)` is enough here - if we
> >>> have vec_len == 0 here, then we'd not fit the entry in the userspace
> >>> buffer anyway. Am I missing something?
> >> No. I'd explained it with diagram last time:
> >> https://lore.kernel.org/all/3c8d9ea0-1382-be0c-8dd2-d490eedd3b55@collabora.com
> >>
> >> I'll add a concise comment here.
> >
> > So it seems, but I think the code changed a bit and maybe could be
> > simplified now? Since p->vec_len == 0 is currently not valid, the
> > field could count only the entries available in p->vec[] -- IOW: not
> > include p->cur in the count.
> I see. But this'll not work as we need to count p->cur to don't go above
> the maximum count, p->vec_size.

You can subtract 1 from p->vec_size before the page walk to account
for the buffer in `cur`.

[...]
> >>>> +static inline int pagemap_scan_deposit(struct pagemap_scan_private *p,
> >>>> +                                      struct page_region __user *vec,
> >>>> +                                      unsigned long *vec_index)
> >>>
> >>> ..._deposit() is used only in single place - please inline.
> >> It is already inline.
> >
> > Sorry. I mean: please paste the code in place of the single call.
> I've made it a separate function to make the code look better in the caller
> function and logically easier to understand. This function is ugly.
> do_pagemap_scan() is also already very long function with lots of things
> happening. If you still insist, I'll remove this function.

Please do remove - it will make the copy to userspace code all neatly together.

[...]
> >>>> +                */
> >>>> +               if (is_written && PM_SCAN_OP_IS_WP(p) &&
> >>>> +                   ((end - start < HPAGE_SIZE) ||
> >>>> +                    (p->max_pages &&
> >>>> +                     (p->max_pages - p->found_pages) < n_pages))) {
> >>>> +
> >>>> +                       split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, start);
> >>>> +                       goto process_smaller_pages;
> >>>> +               }
> >>>> +
> >>>> +               if (p->max_pages &&
> >>>> +                   p->found_pages + n_pages > p->max_pages)
> >>>> +                       n_pages = p->max_pages - p->found_pages;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +               ret = pagemap_scan_output(is_written, is_file, is_present,
> >>>> +                                         is_swap, p, start, n_pages);
> >>>> +               if (ret < 0)
> >>>> +                       return ret;
> >
> > So let's simplify this:
> >
> > if (p->max_pages && n_pages > max_pages - found_pages)
> >   n_pages = max_pages - found_pages;
> >
> > if (is_written && DO_WP && n_pages != HPAGE_SIZE / PAGE_SIZE) {
> >   split_thp();
> >   goto process_smaller_pages;
> > }
> Clever!! This looks very sleek.
>
> >
> > BTW, THP handling could be extracted to a function that would return
> > -EAGAIN if it has split the page or it wasn't a THP -- and that would
> > mean `goto process_smaller_pages`.
> Other functions in this file handle the THP in this same way. So it feels
> like more intuitive that we follow to same pattern in this file.

I'll leave it to you. Extracting THP support would avoid a goto and
#ifdef inside a function, though (and make the function smaller).

> >>>> +       /*
> >>>> +        * Allocate smaller buffer to get output from inside the page walk
> >>>> +        * functions and walk page range in PAGEMAP_WALK_SIZE size chunks. As
> >>>> +        * we want to return output to user in compact form where no two
> >>>> +        * consecutive regions should be continuous and have the same flags.
> >>>> +        * So store the latest element in p.cur between different walks and
> >>>> +        * store the p.cur at the end of the walk to the user buffer.
> >>>> +        */
> >>>> +       p.vec = kmalloc_array(p.vec_len, sizeof(struct page_region),
> >>>> +                             GFP_KERNEL);
> >>>> +       if (!p.vec)
> >>>> +               return -ENOMEM;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +       walk_start = walk_end = start;
> >>>> +       while (walk_end < end && !ret) {
> >>>
> >>> The loop will stop if a previous iteration returned ENOSPC (and the
> >>> error will be lost) - is it intended?
> >> It is intentional. -ENOSPC means that the user buffer is full even though
> >> there was more memory to walk over. We don't treat this error. So when
> >> buffer gets full, we stop walking over further as user buffer has gotten
> >> full and return as success.
> >
> > Thanks. What's the difference between -ENOSPC and
> > PM_SCAN_FOUND_MAX_PAGES? They seem to result in the same effect (code
> > flow).
> -ENOSPC --> user buffer has been filled completely
> PM_SCAN_FOUND_MAX_PAGES --> max_pages have been found, user buffer may
>                             still have more space

What is the difference in code behaviour when those two cases are
compared? (I'd expect none.)

Best Regards
Michał Mirosław

Powered by blists - more mailing lists