lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [HMM v13 06/18] mm/ZONE_DEVICE/unaddressable: add special swap for unaddressable
On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 01:06:45PM +1100, Balbir Singh wrote:
>
>
> On 19/11/16 05:18, Jérôme Glisse wrote:
> > To allow use of device un-addressable memory inside a process add a
> > special swap type. Also add a new callback to handle page fault on
> > such entry.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> > Cc: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
> > Cc: Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com>
> > ---
> > fs/proc/task_mmu.c | 10 +++++++-
> > include/linux/memremap.h | 5 ++++
> > include/linux/swap.h | 18 ++++++++++---
> > include/linux/swapops.h | 67 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > kernel/memremap.c | 14 ++++++++++
> > mm/Kconfig | 12 +++++++++
> > mm/memory.c | 24 +++++++++++++++++
> > mm/mprotect.c | 12 +++++++++
> > 8 files changed, 158 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > index 6909582..0726d39 100644
> > --- a/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > +++ b/fs/proc/task_mmu.c
> > @@ -544,8 +544,11 @@ static void smaps_pte_entry(pte_t *pte, unsigned long addr,
> > } else {
> > mss->swap_pss += (u64)PAGE_SIZE << PSS_SHIFT;
> > }
> > - } else if (is_migration_entry(swpent))
> > + } else if (is_migration_entry(swpent)) {
> > page = migration_entry_to_page(swpent);
> > + } else if (is_device_entry(swpent)) {
> > + page = device_entry_to_page(swpent);
> > + }
>
>
> So the reason there is a device swap entry for a page belonging to a user process is
> that it is in the middle of migration or is it always that a swap entry represents
> unaddressable memory belonging to a GPU device, but its tracked in the page table
> entries of the process.

For page being migrated i use the existing special migration pte entry. This new device
special swap entry is only for unaddressable memory belonging to a device (GPU or any
else). We need to keep track of those inside the CPU page table. Using a new special
swap entry is the easiest way with the minimum amount of change to core mm.

[...]

> > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEVICE_UNADDRESSABLE
> > +static inline swp_entry_t make_device_entry(struct page *page, bool write)
> > +{
> > + return swp_entry(write?SWP_DEVICE_WRITE:SWP_DEVICE, page_to_pfn(page));
>
> Code style checks

I was trying to balance against 79 columns break rule :)

[...]

> > + } else if (is_device_entry(entry)) {
> > + page = device_entry_to_page(entry);
> > +
> > + get_page(page);
> > + rss[mm_counter(page)]++;
>
> Why does rss count go up?

I wanted the device page to be treated like any other page. There is an argument
to be made against and for doing that. Do you have strong argument for not doing
this ?

[...]

> > @@ -2536,6 +2557,9 @@ int do_swap_page(struct fault_env *fe, pte_t orig_pte)
> > if (unlikely(non_swap_entry(entry))) {
> > if (is_migration_entry(entry)) {
> > migration_entry_wait(vma->vm_mm, fe->pmd, fe->address);
> > + } else if (is_device_entry(entry)) {
> > + ret = device_entry_fault(vma, fe->address, entry,
> > + fe->flags, fe->pmd);
>
> What does device_entry_fault() actually do here?

Well it is a special fault handler, it must migrate the memory back to some place
where the CPU can access it. It only matter for unaddressable memory.

> > } else if (is_hwpoison_entry(entry)) {
> > ret = VM_FAULT_HWPOISON;
> > } else {
> > diff --git a/mm/mprotect.c b/mm/mprotect.c
> > index 1bc1eb3..70aff3a 100644
> > --- a/mm/mprotect.c
> > +++ b/mm/mprotect.c
> > @@ -139,6 +139,18 @@ static unsigned long change_pte_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, pmd_t *pmd,
> >
> > pages++;
> > }
> > +
> > + if (is_write_device_entry(entry)) {
> > + pte_t newpte;
> > +
> > + make_device_entry_read(&entry);
> > + newpte = swp_entry_to_pte(entry);
> > + if (pte_swp_soft_dirty(oldpte))
> > + newpte = pte_swp_mksoft_dirty(newpte);
> > + set_pte_at(mm, addr, pte, newpte);
> > +
> > + pages++;
> > + }
>
> Does it make sense to call mprotect() on device memory ranges?

There is nothing special about vma that containt device memory. They can be
private anonymous, share, file back ... So any existing memory syscall must
behave as expected. This is really just like any other page except that CPU
can not access it.

Cheers,
Jérôme

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-21 06:06    [W:0.088 / U:0.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site