Date: Thu, 20 Jun 2024 20:08:32 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Fuad Tabba <tabba@...gle.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
	Elliot Berman <quic_eberman@...cinc.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
	maz@...nel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, pbonzini@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 0/5] mm/gup: Introduce exclusive GUP pinning

On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 08:53:07PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 20.06.24 18:36, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 20, 2024 at 04:45:08PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > 
> > > If we could disallow pinning any shared pages, that would make life a lot
> > > easier, but I think there were reasons for why we might require it. To
> > > convert shared->private, simply unmap that folio (only the shared parts
> > > could possibly be mapped) from all user page tables.
> > 
> > IMHO it should be reasonable to make it work like ZONE_MOVABLE and
> > FOLL_LONGTERM. Making a shared page private is really no different
> > from moving it.
> > 
> > And if you have built a VMM that uses VMA mapped shared pages and
> > short-term pinning then you should really also ensure that the VM is
> > aware when the pins go away. For instance if you are doing some virtio
> > thing with O_DIRECT pinning then the guest will know the pins are gone
> > when it observes virtio completions.
> > 
> > In this way making private is just like moving, we unmap the page and
> > then drive the refcount to zero, then move it.
> Yes, but here is the catch: what if a single shared subpage of a large folio
> is (validly) longterm pinned and you want to convert another shared subpage
> to private?

When I wrote the above I was assuming option b was the choice.

> a) Disallow long-term pinning. That means, we can, with a bit of wait,
>    always convert subpages shared->private after unmapping them and
>    waiting for the short-term pin to go away. Not too bad, and we
>    already have other mechanisms disallow long-term pinnings (especially
>    writable fs ones!).

This seems reasonable, but you are trading off a big hit to IO
performance while doing shared/private operations

> b) Expose the large folio as multiple 4k folios to the core-mm.

And this trades off more VMM memory usage and micro-slower
copy_to/from_user. I think this is probably the better choice

IMHO the VMA does not need to map at a high granularity for these
cases. The IO path on these VM types is already disastrously slow,
optimizing with 1GB huge pages in the VMM to make copy_to/from_user
very slightly faster doesn't seem worthwhile.

> b) would look as follows: we allocate a gigantic page from the (hugetlb)
> reserve into guest_memfd. Then, we break it down into individual 4k folios
> by splitting/demoting the folio. We make sure that all 4k folios are
> unmovable (raised refcount). We keep tracking internally that these 4k
> folios comprise a single large gigantic page.

Yes, something like this. Or maybe they get converted to ZONE_DEVICE
pages so that freeing them goes back to pgmap callback in the the
guest_memfd or something simple like that.

> The downside is that we won't benefit from vmemmap optimizations for large
> folios from hugetlb, and have more tracking overhead when mapping individual
> pages into user page tables.

Yes, that too, but you are going to have some kind of per 4k tracking
overhead anyhow in guest_memfd no matter what you do. It would
probably be less than the struct pages though.

There is also the interesting option to use a PFNMAP VMA so there is
no refcounting and we don't need to mess with the struct pages. The
downside is that you totally lose GUP. So no O_DIRECT..

Jason

Powered by blists - more mailing lists