Message-ID: <547f6335-ceb4-4160-ba72-5214bf5c82f3@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2025 10:12:24 +0100
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
 dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
 nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
 Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, Alex Shi <alexs@...nel.org>,
 Yanteng Si <si.yanteng@...ux.dev>, Karol Herbst <kherbst@...hat.com>,
 Lyude Paul <lyude@...hat.com>, Danilo Krummrich <dakr@...nel.org>,
 David Airlie <airlied@...il.com>, Simona Vetter <simona@...ll.ch>,
 "Liam R. Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>,
 Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
 Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
 Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
 Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 04/12] mm/rmap: implement make_device_exclusive() using
 folio_walk instead of rmap walk

On 30.01.25 10:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.01.25 07:11, Alistair Popple wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:54:02PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> We require a writable PTE and only support anonymous folio: we can only
>>> have exactly one PTE pointing at that page, which we can just lookup
>>> using a folio walk, avoiding the rmap walk and the anon VMA lock.
>>>
>>> So let's stop doing an rmap walk and perform a folio walk instead, so we
>>> can easily just modify a single PTE and avoid relying on rmap/mapcounts.
>>>
>>> We now effectively work on a single PTE instead of multiple PTEs of
>>> a large folio, allowing for conversion of individual PTEs from
>>> non-exclusive to device-exclusive -- note that the other way always
>>> worked on single PTEs.
>>>
>>> We can drop the MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE MMU notifier call and document why
>>> that is not required: GUP will already take care of the
>>> MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE call if required (there is already a device-exclusive
>>> entry) when not finding a present PTE and having to trigger a fault and
>>> ending up in remove_device_exclusive_entry().
>>
>> I will have to look at this a bit more closely tomorrow but this doesn't seem
>> right to me. We may be transitioning from a present PTE (ie. a writable
>> anonymous mapping) to a non-present PTE (ie. a device-exclusive entry) and
>> therefore any secondary processors (eg. other GPUs, iommus, etc.) will need to
>> update their copies of the PTE. So I think the notifier call is needed.
> 
> Then it is all very confusing:
> 
> "MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE: to signal a device driver that the device will no
> longer have exclusive access to the page."
> 
> That's simply not true in the scenario you describe, because nobody had
> exclusive access.
> 
> But what you are saying is, that we need to inform others (e.g., KVM)
> that we are converting it to a device-exclusive entry, such that they
> stop accessing it.
> 
> That makes sense to me (and the cleanup patch in the cleanup series
> would have to go as well to prevent the livelock).
> 
> So we would have to update the documentation of MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE
> that it is also trigger on conversion from non-exclusive to exclusive.
> 
> Does that make sense?

Something like that on top:

diff --git a/mm/rmap.c b/mm/rmap.c
index 49ffac6d27f8..fd6dfe67ce7b 100644
--- a/mm/rmap.c
+++ b/mm/rmap.c
@@ -2405,6 +2405,7 @@ void try_to_migrate(struct folio *folio, enum ttu_flags flags)
  struct page *make_device_exclusive(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
                 void *owner, struct folio **foliop)
  {
+       struct mmu_notifier_range range;
         struct folio *folio, *fw_folio;
         struct vm_area_struct *vma;
         struct folio_walk fw;
@@ -2413,6 +2414,7 @@ struct page *make_device_exclusive(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
         pte_t swp_pte;
  
         mmap_assert_locked(mm);
+       addr = PAGE_ALIGN_DOWN(addr);
  
         /*
          * Fault in the page writable and try to lock it; note that if the
@@ -2440,6 +2442,14 @@ struct page *make_device_exclusive(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
                 return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
         }
  
+       /*
+        * Inform secondary MMUs that we are going to convert this PTE to
+        * device-exclusive, such that they unmap it now.
+        */
+       mmu_notifier_range_init_owner(&range, MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE, 0,
+                                     mm, addr, addr + PAGE_SIZE, owner);
+       mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_start(&range);
+
         /*
          * Let's do a second walk and make sure we still find the same page
          * mapped writable. If we don't find what we expect, we will trigger
@@ -2452,6 +2462,7 @@ struct page *make_device_exclusive(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
             fw.level != FW_LEVEL_PTE || !pte_write(fw.pte)) {
                 if (fw_folio)
                         folio_walk_end(&fw, vma);
+               mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
                 folio_unlock(folio);
                 folio_put(folio);
                 return ERR_PTR(-EBUSY);
@@ -2485,6 +2496,7 @@ struct page *make_device_exclusive(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long addr,
         folio_remove_rmap_pte(folio, page, vma);
  
         folio_walk_end(&fw, vma);
+       mmu_notifier_invalidate_range_end(&range);
         *foliop = folio;
         return page;
  }


-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb

Powered by blists - more mailing lists