Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200422001422.232330-1-walken@google.com> <20200422001422.232330-11-walken@google.com>
 <20200422015829.GR5820@bombadil.infradead.org> <CANN689EnGsJXA8n6JvTryQfkCtARPvtZbkH+9Dd2a4X+fvqU9g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200423015917.GA13910@bombadil.infradead.org> <20200424012612.GA158937@google.com>
 <20200424013958.GC158937@google.com> <f20ab834-cddb-eaa7-c03e-18f0c4897a33@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200519131009.GD189720@google.com> <7c540ac9-ba44-7187-5dc2-60b4c761e91c@linux.ibm.com>
 <20200519153251.GY16070@bombadil.infradead.org> <10d48b77-5c6e-2e10-84e6-16cdd76a45f1@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <10d48b77-5c6e-2e10-84e6-16cdd76a45f1@nvidia.com>
From:   Michel Lespinasse <walken@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 19 May 2020 19:39:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CANN689EubtJL2mbcz5Au05nW87gVuY-19r7nZd9x0y320PUb0g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5.5 10/10] mmap locking API: rename mmap_sem to mmap_lock
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Liam Howlett <Liam.Howlett@oracle.com>,
        Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Ying Han <yinghan@google.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        Daniel Jordan <daniel.m.jordan@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 11:15 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
> On 2020-05-19 08:32, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 03:20:40PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> >> Le 19/05/2020 =C3=A0 15:10, Michel Lespinasse a =C3=A9crit :
> >>> On Mon, May 18, 2020 at 03:45:22PM +0200, Laurent Dufour wrote:
> >>>> Le 24/04/2020 =C3=A0 03:39, Michel Lespinasse a =C3=A9crit :
> >>>>> Rename the mmap_sem field to mmap_lock. Any new uses of this lock
> >>>>> should now go through the new mmap locking api. The mmap_lock is
> >>>>> still implemented as a rwsem, though this could change in the futur=
e.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.c b/drivers/gpu/dr=
m/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.c
> >>>>> index dc9ef302f517..701f3995f621 100644
> >>>>> --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.c
> >>>>> +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/etnaviv/etnaviv_gem.c
> >>>>> @@ -661,7 +661,7 @@ static int etnaviv_gem_userptr_get_pages(struct=
 etnaviv_gem_object *etnaviv_obj)
> >>>>>           struct etnaviv_gem_userptr *userptr =3D &etnaviv_obj->use=
rptr;
> >>>>>           int ret, pinned =3D 0, npages =3D etnaviv_obj->base.size =
>> PAGE_SHIFT;
> >>>>> - might_lock_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
> >>>>> + might_lock_read(&current->mm->mmap_lock);
> >>>>
> >>>> Why not a mm_might_lock_read() new API to hide the mmap_lock, and ad=
d it to
> >>>> the previous patch?
> >>>
> >>> I'm not sure why this is needed - we may rework the lock to be
> >>> something else than rwsem, but might_lock_read should still apply to
> >>> it and make sense ? I'm not sure what the extra API would bring...
> >>
> >> I guess at one time the API would become might_lock_read_a_range(), is=
n't it?

I don't think this should be necessary - from lockdep perspective,
there should not be a difference between locking a range vs the entire
address space.

> >> Furthermore this would hiding the lock's name which the goal of this s=
eries.

Actually to me the name is very secondary - the goal of the series is
to add an api abstracting the mmap locking. The lock name is secondary
to that, it only gets renamed because mmap_sem was too specific (if we
are to change the mmap locking) and to ensure we convert all direct
uses to use the api instead.

> > I think this assertion should be deleted from this driver.  It's there
> > in case get_user_pages_fast() takes the mmap sem.  It would make sense =
to
> > have this assertion in get_user_pages_fast() in case we take the fast p=
ath
> > which doesn't acquire the mmap_sem.  Something like this:

I like this idea a lot - having might_lock assertions in
get_user_pages_fast makes a log more sense than doing the same at the
call sites.

> There are a couple of recent developments in this code to keep in mind. I=
 don't
> *think* either one is a problem here, but just in case:
>
> a) The latest version of the above routine [1] is on its way to mmotm as =
of
> yesterday, and that version more firmly divides the fast and slow parts,
> via a new FOLL_FAST_ONLY flag. The fall-back to slow/regular gup only occ=
urs
> if the caller does not set FOLL_FAST_ONLY. (Note that it's a gup.c intern=
al
> flag, btw.)
>
> That gives you additional options inside internal_get_user_pages_fast(), =
such
> as, approximately:
>
> if (!(gup_flags & FOLL_FAST_ONLY))
>         might_lock_read(&current->mm->mmap_lock);
>
> ...not that that is necessarily a great idea, seeing as how it merely cha=
nges
> "might lock" into "maybe might lock".  :)

I think that is completely fine, makes sure everyone not using
FOLL_FAST_ONLY realizes that the call could block.

Can I ask you to add that assertion in your patchset ? Based on
Matthew's feedback, I would do it in my patchset, but it doesn't seem
worth doing if we know this will conflict with your changes.

--=20
Michel "Walken" Lespinasse
A program is never fully debugged until the last user dies.