lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC 2/3] mm: Add support for exposing if dev_pagemap supports refcount pinning
On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 12:21 PM Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2018-12-03 at 11:47 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 11:25 AM Alexander Duyck
> > <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Add a means of exposing if a pagemap supports refcount pinning. I am doing
> > > this to expose if a given pagemap has backing struct pages that will allow
> > > for the reference count of the page to be incremented to lock the page
> > > into place.
> > >
> > > The KVM code already has several spots where it was trying to use a
> > > pfn_valid check combined with a PageReserved check to determien if it could
> > > take a reference on the page. I am adding this check so in the case of the
> > > page having the reserved flag checked we can check the pagemap for the page
> > > to determine if we might fall into the special DAX case.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@linux.intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c | 2 ++
> > > include/linux/memremap.h | 5 ++++-
> > > include/linux/mm.h | 11 +++++++++++
> > > 3 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c b/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
> > > index 6f22272e8d80..7a4a85bcf7f4 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/nvdimm/pfn_devs.c
> > > @@ -640,6 +640,8 @@ static int __nvdimm_setup_pfn(struct nd_pfn *nd_pfn, struct dev_pagemap *pgmap)
> > > } else
> > > return -ENXIO;
> > >
> > > + pgmap->support_refcount_pinning = true;
> > > +
> >
> > There should be no dev_pagemap instance instance where this isn't
> > true, so I'm missing why this is needed?
>
> I thought in the case of HMM there were instances where you couldn't
> pin the page, isn't there? Specifically I am thinking of the definition
> of MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC:
> Device memory that is cache coherent from device and CPU point of
> view. This is use on platform that have an advance system bus (like
> CAPI or CCIX). A driver can hotplug the device memory using
> ZONE_DEVICE and with that memory type. Any page of a process can be
> migrated to such memory. However no one should be allow to pin such
> memory so that it can always be evicted.
>
> It sounds like MEMORY_DEVICE_PUBLIC and MMIO would want to fall into
> the same category here in order to allow a hot-plug event to remove the
> device and take the memory with it, or is my understanding on this not
> correct?

I don't understand how HMM expects to enforce no pinning, but in any
event it should always be the expectation an elevated reference count
on a page prevents that page from disappearing. Anything else is
broken.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-03 21:32    [W:0.069 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site