[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <f409cbe7-7865-45ab-af9a-6d5108bc5ad4@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2025 21:19:05 +0200
From: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@...gle.com>, Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>,
James Houghton <jthoughton@...gle.com>, Nikita Kalyazin
<kalyazin@...zon.com>, Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>,
Ujwal Kundur <ujwal.kundur@...il.com>, Mike Rapoport <rppt@...nel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
"Liam R . Howlett" <Liam.Howlett@...cle.com>, Michal Hocko
<mhocko@...e.com>, Muchun Song <muchun.song@...ux.dev>,
Oscar Salvador <osalvador@...e.de>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/4] mm: Introduce vm_uffd_ops API
On 30.09.25 20:48, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2025 at 11:36:53AM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> +/* VMA userfaultfd operations */
>>> +struct vm_uffd_ops {
>>> + /**
>>> + * @uffd_features: features supported in bitmask.
>>> + *
>>> + * When the ops is defined, the driver must set non-zero features
>>> + * to be a subset (or all) of: VM_UFFD_MISSING|WP|MINOR.
>>> + *
>>> + * NOTE: VM_UFFD_MISSING is still only supported under mm/ so far.
>>> + */
>>> + unsigned long uffd_features;
>>
>> This variable name is a bit confusing , because it's all about vma flags,
>> not uffd features. Just reading the variable, I would rather connect it to
>> things like UFFD_FEATURE_WP_UNPOPULATED.
>>
>> As currently used for VM flags, maybe you should call this
>>
>> unsigned long uffd_vm_flags;
>>
>> or sth like that.
>
> Indeed it's slightly confusing. However uffd_vm_flags is confusing in
> another way, where it seems to imply some flags similar to vm_flags that is
> prone to change.
>
> How about uffd_vm_flags_supported / uffd_modes_supported?
The former would make things clearer when we are at least not talking
about uffd features.
>
>>
>> I briefly wondered whether we could use actual UFFD_FEATURE_* here, but they
>> are rather unsuited for this case here (e.g., different feature flags for
>> hugetlb support/shmem support etc).
>>
>> But reading "uffd_ioctls" below, can't we derive the suitable vma flags from
>> the supported ioctls?
>>
>> _UFFDIO_COPY | _UFDIO_ZEROPAGE -> VM_UFFD_MISSING
>> _UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT -> VM_UFFD_WP
>> _UFFDIO_CONTINUE -> VM_UFFD_MINOR
>
> Yes we can deduce that, but it'll be unclear then when one stares at a
> bunch of ioctls and cannot easily digest the modes the memory type
> supports. Here, the modes should be the most straightforward way to
> describe the capability of a memory type.
I rather dislike the current split approach between vm-flags and ioctls.
I briefly thought about abstracting it for internal purposes further and
just have some internal backend ("memory type") flags.
UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_MISSING -> _UFFDIO_COPY and VM_UFFD_MISSING
UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_ZEROPAGE -> _UFDIO_ZEROPAGE
UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_WP -> _UFFDIO_WRITEPROTECT and VM_UFFD_WP
UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_MINOR -> _UFFDIO_CONTINUE and VM_UFFD_MINOR
UFFD_BACKEND_FEAT_POISON -> _UFFDIO_POISON
>
> If hugetlbfs supported ZEROPAGE, then we can deduce the ioctls the other
> way round, and we can drop the uffd_ioctls. However we need the ioctls now
> for hugetlbfs to make everything generic.
POISON is not a VM_ flag, so that wouldn't work completely, right?
As a side note, hugetlbfs support for ZEROPAGE should be fairly easy:
similar to shmem support, simply allocate a zeroed hugetlb folio.
>
> Do you mind I still keep it as-is?
I would prefer if we find a way to not have this dependency between both
feature/ioctl thingies. It just looks rather odd.
But let's hear if there are other opinions.
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
Powered by blists - more mailing lists