Nouveau - Aug 2019 - [PATCH 04/15] mm: remove the pgmap field from struct hmm_vma_walk

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 06:36:33PM -0700, Dan Williams
wrote:
> Section alignment constraints somewhat save us here. The only example
> I can think of a PMD not containing a uniform pgmap association for
> each pte is the case when the pgmap overlaps normal dram, i.e. shares
> the same 'struct memory_section' for a given span. Otherwise,
distinct
> pgmaps arrange to manage their own exclusive sections (and now
> subsections as of v5.3). Otherwise the implementation could not
> guarantee different mapping lifetimes.
> 
> That said, this seems to want a better mechanism to determine "pfn is
> ZONE_DEVICE".
So I guess this patch is fine for now, and once you provide a better
mechanism we can switch over to it?

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:38:54AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig
wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 06:36:33PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > Section alignment constraints somewhat save us here. The only example
> > I can think of a PMD not containing a uniform pgmap association for
> > each pte is the case when the pgmap overlaps normal dram, i.e. shares
> > the same 'struct memory_section' for a given span. Otherwise,
distinct
> > pgmaps arrange to manage their own exclusive sections (and now
> > subsections as of v5.3). Otherwise the implementation could not
> > guarantee different mapping lifetimes.
> > 
> > That said, this seems to want a better mechanism to determine
"pfn is
> > ZONE_DEVICE".
> 
> So I guess this patch is fine for now, and once you provide a better
> mechanism we can switch over to it?
What about the version I sent to just get rid of all the strange
put_dev_pagemaps while scanning? Odds are good we will work with only
a single pagemap, so it makes some sense to cache it once we find it?

diff --git a/mm/hmm.c b/mm/hmm.c
index 9a908902e4cc38..4e30128c23a505 100644
--- a/mm/hmm.c
+++ b/mm/hmm.c
@@ -497,10 +497,6 @@ static int hmm_vma_handle_pmd(struct mm_walk *walk,
 		}
 		pfns[i] = hmm_device_entry_from_pfn(range, pfn) | cpu_flags;
 	}
-	if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
-		put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
-		hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
-	}
 	hmm_vma_walk->last = end;
 	return 0;
 #else
@@ -604,10 +600,6 @@ static int hmm_vma_handle_pte(struct mm_walk *walk,
unsigned long addr,
 	return 0;
 
 fault:
-	if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
-		put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
-		hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
-	}
 	pte_unmap(ptep);
 	/* Fault any virtual address we were asked to fault */
 	return hmm_vma_walk_hole_(addr, end, fault, write_fault, walk);
@@ -690,16 +682,6 @@ static int hmm_vma_walk_pmd(pmd_t *pmdp,
 			return r;
 		}
 	}
-	if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
-		/*
-		 * We do put_dev_pagemap() here and not in hmm_vma_handle_pte()
-		 * so that we can leverage get_dev_pagemap() optimization which
-		 * will not re-take a reference on a pgmap if we already have
-		 * one.
-		 */
-		put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
-		hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
-	}
 	pte_unmap(ptep - 1);
 
 	hmm_vma_walk->last = addr;
@@ -751,10 +733,6 @@ static int hmm_vma_walk_pud(pud_t *pudp,
 			pfns[i] = hmm_device_entry_from_pfn(range, pfn) |
 				  cpu_flags;
 		}
-		if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap) {
-			put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
-			hmm_vma_walk->pgmap = NULL;
-		}
 		hmm_vma_walk->last = end;
 		return 0;
 	}
@@ -1026,6 +1004,14 @@ long hmm_range_fault(struct hmm_range *range, unsigned
int flags)
 			/* Keep trying while the range is valid. */
 		} while (ret == -EBUSY && range->valid);
 
+		/*
+		 * We do put_dev_pagemap() here so that we can leverage
+		 * get_dev_pagemap() optimization which will not re-take a
+		 * reference on a pgmap if we already have one.
+		 */
+		if (hmm_vma_walk->pgmap)
+			put_dev_pagemap(hmm_vma_walk->pgmap);
+
 		if (ret) {
 			unsigned long i;

On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 6:28 AM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg at mellanox.com>
wrote:
>
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:38:54AM +0200, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 06:36:33PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > > Section alignment constraints somewhat save us here. The only
example
> > > I can think of a PMD not containing a uniform pgmap association
for
> > > each pte is the case when the pgmap overlaps normal dram, i.e.
shares
> > > the same 'struct memory_section' for a given span.
Otherwise, distinct
> > > pgmaps arrange to manage their own exclusive sections (and now
> > > subsections as of v5.3). Otherwise the implementation could not
> > > guarantee different mapping lifetimes.
> > >
> > > That said, this seems to want a better mechanism to determine
"pfn is
> > > ZONE_DEVICE".
> >
> > So I guess this patch is fine for now, and once you provide a better
> > mechanism we can switch over to it?
>
> What about the version I sent to just get rid of all the strange
> put_dev_pagemaps while scanning? Odds are good we will work with only
> a single pagemap, so it makes some sense to cache it once we find it?
Yes, if the scan is over a single pmd then caching it makes sense.