Received: by 2002:ac0:a5a7:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id m36-v6csp4242815imm; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:17:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA+uWPypZLJb1Ih16QT/ctT92C1N4AHWHMMAXqNxYhO9GXC1Ok34sTzG4Mm9xvOWNhwkq7DLBEMH X-Received: by 2002:a62:9101:: with SMTP id l1-v6mr15110244pfe.226.1534792629942; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:17:09 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1534792629; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=kyMmW88T+M8Op+D3xPFnR77G4OvApXLknVtzZSIY7bdHpBtAMLGagCigxsFJNJun5i +shlOnDOqWDO5aswpXB18DPlnC7OfKL40/5YQhBUk/8Cggyd20gqHeVYD0qp2qchB+0k i0VQVsu1hHk4QoYu12mJYgae6kD7VfYCAQl6/eKpmW3anPRkxsjtM1HGqhbKcSL8FKkv 17/71zh/BXpaOUgHiUkWPzwXjWWVy2eMTM6d/tvR8UzLFtKtcTwcAWxD2vcKFrlSA9Xw JfKINMrWZLBQ5Qr8CfV2slAJEgrRKpD8Qi0BS9oRKBAN9uy4bYZLcYdIzmAMOh0YiyEA eWdg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:arc-authentication-results; bh=HNlWbShfWhbKECe9yw7qpkKV5E2AIL7tx93gXhzlhu4=; b=dX1e7bdY6X1QGQMdOSWdkdVgtAguV1MyoVSc7U89Tb2UBEY7riAfl4DCrrZWHRSwRE KXSodRz/rE0B/Cmp7y4rhlTTEZabIhgLIqf2jw4qavJcs3+s1bTSqyzHDgE80xkoq8QE 4avC/rPp/ierBh659bJUSFTjls8uqU9Lcb8PQUIMD48SIraYy309WU01ruhLPU1zc7dH 9Aij0tcedVTgyXhgOxNQcRHwrVYahPy1eiZZmEDbONany7NFm3+jqiRf73XyRJbSCe69 6VHFVcoJ87KlhojV2/i+01mQjoKJEHcFsM+hMfBh+3a213zWXzKZnFoe7j53RqeXeUzJ wQeA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id x4-v6si10223285plo.459.2018.08.20.12.16.53; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 12:17:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726608AbeHTWcY (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 20 Aug 2018 18:32:24 -0400 Received: from mx2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35488 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726293AbeHTWcY (ORCPT ); Mon, 20 Aug 2018 18:32:24 -0400 X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at test-mx.suse.de Received: from relay2.suse.de (unknown [195.135.220.254]) by mx1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAFEAADD8; Mon, 20 Aug 2018 19:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2018 21:15:31 +0200 From: Michal Hocko To: Matthew Wilcox Cc: Li RongQing , Andrew Morton , Dan Williams , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, "Kirill A. Shutemov" , Matthew Wilcox , Souptick Joarder , darrick.wong@oracle.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: introduce kvvirt_to_page() helper Message-ID: <20180820191531.GT29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> References: <1534596541-31393-1-git-send-email-lirongqing@baidu.com> <20180820144116.GO29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180820144923.GA25153@bombadil.infradead.org> <20180820162406.GQ29735@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20180820170744.GD25153@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20180820170744.GD25153@bombadil.infradead.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon 20-08-18 10:07:44, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 06:24:06PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Mon 20-08-18 07:49:23, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 04:41:16PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > > > On Sat 18-08-18 20:49:01, Li RongQing wrote: > > > > > The new helper returns address mapping page, which has several users > > > > > in individual subsystem, like mem_to_page in xfs_buf.c and pgv_to_page > > > > > in af_packet.c, unify them > > > > > > > > kvvirt_to_page is a weird name. I guess you wanted it to fit into > > > > kv*alloc, kvfree naming, right? If yes then I guess kvmem_to_page > > > > would be slightly better. > > > > > > > > Other than that the patch makes sense to me. It would be great to add > > > > some documentation and be explicit that the call is only safe on > > > > directly mapped kernel address and vmalloc areas. > > > > > > ... and not safe if the length crosses a page boundary. I don't want to > > > see new code emerge that does kvmalloc(PAGE_SIZE * 2, ...); kvmem_to_page() > > > and have it randomly crash when kvmalloc happens to fall back to vmalloc() > > > under heavy memory pressure. > > > > > > Also, people are going to start using this for stack addresses. Perhaps > > > we should have a debug option to guard against them doing that. > > > > I do agree that such an interface is quite dangerous. That's why I was > > stressing out the proper documentation. I would be much happier if we > > could do without it altogether. Maybe the existing users can be rewoked > > to not rely on the addr2page functionality. If that is not the case then > > we should probably offer a helper. With some WARN_ONs to catch misuse > > would be really nice. I am not really sure how many abuses can we catch > > actually though. > > I certainly understand the enthusiasm for sharing this code rather than > having dozens of places outside the VM implement their own version of it. > But I think most of these users are using code that's working at the wrong > level. Most of them seem to have an address range which may-or-may-not-be > virtually mapped and they want to get an array-of-pages for that. > > Perhaps we should offer -that- API instead. vmalloc/vmap already has > an array-of-pages, and the various users could be given a pointer to > that array. If the memory isn't vmapped, maybe the caller could pass > an array pointer like XFS does, or we could require them to pass GFP flags > to allocate a new array. Sure, I wouldn't be opposed if there was a model which doesn't force them to do hacks like this. -- Michal Hocko SUSE Labs