Date:   Mon, 26 Jun 2023 22:49:24 +0800
From:   Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>
To:     Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...hat.com>
Cc:     maple-tree@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peng Zhang <zhangpeng.00@...edance.com>,
        David Airlie <airlied@...hat.com>,
        Boris Brezillon <boris.brezillon@...labora.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 14/16] maple_tree: Refine mas_preallocate() node
 calculations



在 2023/6/26 22:27, Danilo Krummrich 写道:
> On 6/26/23 15:19, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 02:38:06AM +0200, Danilo Krummrich wrote:
>>> On the other hand, unless I miss something (and if so, please let me 
>>> know),
>>> something is bogus with the API then.
>>>
>>> While the documentation of the Advanced API of the maple tree explicitly
>>> claims that the user of the API is responsible for locking, this 
>>> should be
>>> limited to the bounds set by the maple tree implementation. Which 
>>> means, the
>>> user must decide for either the internal (spin-) lock or an external 
>>> lock
>>> (which possibly goes away in the future) and acquire and release it
>>> according to the rules maple tree enforces through lockdep checks.
>>>
>>> Let's say one picks the internal lock. How is one supposed to ensure the
>>> tree isn't modified using the internal lock with mas_preallocate()?
>>>
>>> Besides that, I think the documentation should definitely mention this
>>> limitation and give some guidance for the locking.
>>>
>>> Currently, from an API perspective, I can't see how anyone not 
>>> familiar with
>>> the implementation details would be able to recognize this limitation.
>>>
>>> In terms of the GPUVA manager, unfortunately, it seems like I need to 
>>> drop
>>> the maple tree and go back to using a rb-tree, since it seems there 
>>> is no
>>> sane way doing a worst-case pre-allocation that does not suffer from 
>>> this
>>> limitation.
>>
>> I haven't been paying much attention here (too many other things going
>> on), but something's wrong.
>>
>> First, you shouldn't need to preallocate.  Preallocation is only there
> 
> Unfortunately, I think we really have a case where we have to. Typically 
> GPU mappings are created in a dma-fence signalling critical path and 
> that is where such mappings need to be added to the maple tree. Hence, 
> we can't do any sleeping allocations there.
> 
>> for really gnarly cases.  The way this is *supposed* to work is that
>> the store walks down to the leaf, attempts to insert into that leaf
>> and tries to allocate new nodes with __GFP_NOWAIT.  If that fails,
>> it drops the spinlock, allocates with the gfp flags you've specified,
>> then rewalks the tree to retry the store, this time with allocated
>> nodes in its back pocket so that the store will succeed.
> 
> You are talking about mas_store_gfp() here, right? And I guess, if the 
> tree has changed while the spinlock was dropped and even more nodes are 
> needed it just retries until it succeeds?
> 
> But what about mas_preallocate()? What happens if the tree changed in 
> between mas_preallocate() and mas_store_prealloc()? Does the latter one 
> fall back to __GFP_NOWAIT in such a case? I guess not, since 
> mas_store_prealloc() has a void return type, and __GFP_NOWAIT could fail 
> as well.
mas_store_prealloc() will fallback to __GFP_NOWAIT and issue a warning.
If __GFP_NOWAIT allocation fails, BUG_ON() in mas_store_prealloc() will
be triggered.

> 
> So, how to use the internal spinlock for mas_preallocate() and 
> mas_store_prealloc() to ensure the tree can't change?
> 

Powered by blists - more mailing lists