[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ef0f8e0e-cbce-7c7b-1b0e-c9d52ede7e0e@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 17:17:13 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
"Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/7] mm/hugetlb: Prepare hugetlb_follow_page_mask() for
FOLL_PIN
On 14.06.23 17:11, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 04:57:37PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 13.06.23 23:53, Peter Xu wrote:
>>> It's coming, not yet, but soon. Loose the restriction.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
>>> ---
>>> mm/hugetlb.c | 7 -------
>>> 1 file changed, 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> index f037eaf9d819..31d8f18bc2e4 100644
>>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>> @@ -6467,13 +6467,6 @@ struct page *hugetlb_follow_page_mask(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
>>> spinlock_t *ptl;
>>> pte_t *pte, entry;
>>> - /*
>>> - * FOLL_PIN is not supported for follow_page(). Ordinary GUP goes via
>>> - * follow_hugetlb_page().
>>> - */
>>> - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & FOLL_PIN))
>>> - return NULL;
>>> -
>>> hugetlb_vma_lock_read(vma);
>>> pte = hugetlb_walk(vma, haddr, huge_page_size(h));
>>> if (!pte)
>> Did you fix why the warning was placed there in the first place? (IIRC, at
>> least unsharing support needs to be added, maybe more)
>
> Feel free to have a look at patch 2 - it should be done there, hopefully in
> the right way. And IIUC it could be a bug to not do that before (besides
> CoR there was also the pgtable permission checks that was missing). More
> details in patch 2's commit message. Thanks,
Oh, that slipped my eyes (unsharing is not really a permission check) --
and the patch description could have been more explicit about why we can
now lift the restrictions.
For the records: we don't use CoR terminology upstream. As suggested by
John, we use "GUP-triggered unsharing".
As unsharing only applies to FOLL_PIN, it doesn't quite fit into patch
#2. Either move that to this patch or squash both.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists