lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Nov]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [HMM v13 06/18] mm/ZONE_DEVICE/unaddressable: add special swap for unaddressable
From
Date


On 21/11/16 16:05, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> 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.
>

Thanks, makes sense

> [...]
>
>>> +#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 ?
>

Yes, It will end up confusing rss accounting IMHO. If a task is using a lot of
pages on the GPU, should be it a candidate for OOM based on it's RSS for example?

> [...]
>
>>> @@ -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.

So effectively swap the page back in, chances are it can ping pong ...but I was wondering if we can
tell the GPU that the CPU is accessing these pages as well. I presume any operation that causes
memory access - core dump will swap back in things from the HMM side onto the CPU side.

>
>>> } 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.

I understand that, but what would marking it as R/O when the GPU is in the middle
of write mean? I would also worry about passing "executable" pages over to the
other side.

Balbir Singh.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-11-22 03:20    [W:0.081 / U:0.400 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site