lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Dec]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v9 23/25] mm/gup: track FOLL_PIN pages
On Tue 10-12-19 18:53:16, John Hubbard wrote:
> Add tracking of pages that were pinned via FOLL_PIN.
>
> As mentioned in the FOLL_PIN documentation, callers who effectively set
> FOLL_PIN are required to ultimately free such pages via unpin_user_page().
> The effect is similar to FOLL_GET, and may be thought of as "FOLL_GET
> for DIO and/or RDMA use".
>
> Pages that have been pinned via FOLL_PIN are identifiable via a
> new function call:
>
> bool page_dma_pinned(struct page *page);
>
> What to do in response to encountering such a page, is left to later
> patchsets. There is discussion about this in [1], [2], and [3].
>
> This also changes a BUG_ON(), to a WARN_ON(), in follow_page_mask().
>
> [1] Some slow progress on get_user_pages() (Apr 2, 2019):
> https://lwn.net/Articles/784574/
> [2] DMA and get_user_pages() (LPC: Dec 12, 2018):
> https://lwn.net/Articles/774411/
> [3] The trouble with get_user_pages() (Apr 30, 2018):
> https://lwn.net/Articles/753027/

The patch looks mostly good to me now. Just a few smaller comments below.

> Suggested-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Suggested-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Reviewed-by: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> Reviewed-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>

I think you inherited here the Reviewed-by tags from the "add flags" patch
you've merged into this one but that's not really fair since this patch
does much more... In particular I didn't give my Reviewed-by tag for this
patch yet.

> +/*
> + * try_grab_compound_head() - attempt to elevate a page's refcount, by a
> + * flags-dependent amount.
> + *
> + * This has a default assumption of "use FOLL_GET behavior, if FOLL_PIN is not
> + * set".
> + *
> + * "grab" names in this file mean, "look at flags to decide whether to use
> + * FOLL_PIN or FOLL_GET behavior, when incrementing the page's refcount.
> + */
> +static __maybe_unused struct page *try_grab_compound_head(struct page *page,
> + int refs,
> + unsigned int flags)
> +{
> + if (flags & FOLL_PIN)
> + return try_pin_compound_head(page, refs);
> +
> + return try_get_compound_head(page, refs);
> +}

I somewhat wonder about the asymmetry of try_grab_compound_head() vs
try_grab_page() in the treatment of 'flags'. How costly would it be to make
them symmetric (i.e., either set FOLL_GET for try_grab_compound_head()
callers or make sure one of FOLL_GET, FOLL_PIN is set for try_grab_page())?

Because this difference looks like a subtle catch in the long run...

> +
> +/**
> + * try_grab_page() - elevate a page's refcount by a flag-dependent amount
> + *
> + * This might not do anything at all, depending on the flags argument.
> + *
> + * "grab" names in this file mean, "look at flags to decide whether to use
> + * FOLL_PIN or FOLL_GET behavior, when incrementing the page's refcount.
> + *
> + * @page: pointer to page to be grabbed
> + * @flags: gup flags: these are the FOLL_* flag values.
> + *
> + * Either FOLL_PIN or FOLL_GET (or neither) may be set, but not both at the same
> + * time. (That's true throughout the get_user_pages*() and pin_user_pages*()
> + * APIs.) Cases:
> + *
> + * FOLL_GET: page's refcount will be incremented by 1.
> + * FOLL_PIN: page's refcount will be incremented by GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS.
> + *
> + * Return: true for success, or if no action was required (if neither FOLL_PIN
> + * nor FOLL_GET was set, nothing is done). False for failure: FOLL_GET or
> + * FOLL_PIN was set, but the page could not be grabbed.
> + */
> +bool __must_check try_grab_page(struct page *page, unsigned int flags)
> +{
> + if (flags & FOLL_GET)
> + return try_get_page(page);
> + else if (flags & FOLL_PIN) {
> + page = compound_head(page);
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(flags & FOLL_GET);
> +
> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(page_ref_zero_or_close_to_bias_overflow(page)))
> + return false;
> +
> + page_ref_add(page, GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS);
> + __update_proc_vmstat(page, NR_FOLL_PIN_REQUESTED, 1);
> + }
> +
> + return true;
> +}

...

> @@ -1522,8 +1536,8 @@ struct page *follow_trans_huge_pmd(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> skip_mlock:
> page += (addr & ~HPAGE_PMD_MASK) >> PAGE_SHIFT;
> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageCompound(page) && !is_zone_device_page(page), page);
> - if (flags & FOLL_GET)
> - get_page(page);
> + if (!try_grab_page(page, flags))
> + page = ERR_PTR(-EFAULT);

I think you need to also move the try_grab_page() earlier in the function.
At this point the page may be marked as mlocked and you'd need to undo that
in case try_grab_page() fails.

> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> index ac65bb5e38ac..0aab6fe0072f 100644
> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> @@ -4356,7 +4356,13 @@ long follow_hugetlb_page(struct mm_struct *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> same_page:
> if (pages) {
> pages[i] = mem_map_offset(page, pfn_offset);
> - get_page(pages[i]);
> + if (!try_grab_page(pages[i], flags)) {
> + spin_unlock(ptl);
> + remainder = 0;
> + err = -ENOMEM;
> + WARN_ON_ONCE(1);
> + break;
> + }
> }

This function does a refcount overflow check early so that it doesn't have
to do try_get_page() here. So that check can be now removed when you do
try_grab_page() here anyway since that early check seems to be just a tiny
optimization AFAICT.

Honza

--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-12-11 12:29    [W:0.134 / U:0.896 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site