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;
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] mm,drm/ttm: Block fast GUP to TTM huge pages
To:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>, David Airlie <airlied@linux.ie>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org,
        linux-mm@kvack.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Christian Koenig <christian.koenig@amd.com>
References: <20210321184529.59006-1-thomas_os@shipmail.org>
 <20210321184529.59006-2-thomas_os@shipmail.org>
 <YFnST5VLcEgv9q+s@phenom.ffwll.local>
 <314fc020-d243-dbf0-acb3-ecfcc9c2443c@shipmail.org>
 <20210323163715.GJ2356281@nvidia.com>
 <5824b731-ca6a-92fd-e314-d986b6a7b101@shipmail.org>
 <YFsM23t2niJwhpM/@phenom.ffwll.local> <20210324122430.GW2356281@nvidia.com>
From:   =?UTF-8?Q?Thomas_Hellstr=c3=b6m_=28Intel=29?= 
        <thomas_os@shipmail.org>
Message-ID: <e12e2c49-afaf-dbac-b18c-272c93c83e06@shipmail.org>
Date:   Wed, 24 Mar 2021 13:35:17 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210324122430.GW2356281@nvidia.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk


On 3/24/21 1:24 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 10:56:43AM +0100, Daniel Vetter wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 06:06:53PM +0100, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
>>> On 3/23/21 5:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> @@ -210,6 +211,20 @@ static vm_fault_t ttm_bo_vm_insert_huge(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>>>>>>>     	if ((pfn & (fault_page_size - 1)) != 0)
>>>>>>>     		goto out_fallback;
>>>>>>> +	/*
>>>>>>> +	 * Huge entries must be special, that is marking them as devmap
>>>>>>> +	 * with no backing device map range. If there is a backing
>>>>>>> +	 * range, Don't insert a huge entry.
>>>>>>> +	 * If this check turns out to be too much of a performance hit,
>>>>>>> +	 * we can instead have drivers indicate whether they may have
>>>>>>> +	 * backing device map ranges and if not, skip this lookup.
>>>>>>> +	 */
>>>>>> I think we can do this statically:
>>>>>> - if it's system memory we know there's no devmap for it, and we do the
>>>>>>      trick to block gup_fast
>>>>> Yes, that should work.
>>>>>> - if it's iomem, we know gup_fast wont work anyway if don't set PFN_DEV,
>>>>>>      so might as well not do that
>>>>> I think gup_fast will unfortunately mistake a huge iomem page for an
>>>>> ordinary page and try to access a non-existant struct page for it, unless we
>>>>> do the devmap trick.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the lookup would then be for the rare case where a driver would have
>>>>> already registered a dev_pagemap for an iomem area which may also be mapped
>>>>> through TTM (like the patch from Felix a couple of weeks ago). If a driver
>>>>> can promise not to do that, then we can safely remove the lookup.
>>>> Isn't the devmap PTE flag arch optional? Does this fall back to not
>>>> using huge pages on arches that don't support it?
>>> Good point. No, currently it's only conditioned on transhuge page support.
>>> Need to condition it on also devmap support.
>>>
>>>> Also, I feel like this code to install "pte_special" huge pages does
>>>> not belong in the drm subsystem..
>>> I could add helpers in huge_memory.c:
>>>
>>> vmf_insert_pfn_pmd_prot_special() and
>>> vmf_insert_pfn_pud_prot_special()
>> The somewhat annoying thing is that we'd need an error code so we fall
>> back to pte fault handling. That's at least my understanding of how
>> pud/pmd fault handling works. Not sure how awkward that is going to be
>> with the overall fault handling flow.
>>
>> But aside from that I think this makes tons of sense.
> Why should the driver be so specific?
>
> vmf_insert_pfn_range_XXX()
>
> And it will figure out the optimal way to build the page tables.
>
> Driver should provide the largest physically contiguous range it can

I figure that would probably work, but since the huge_fault() interface 
is already providing the size of the fault based on how the pagetable is 
currently populated I figure that would have to move a lot of that logic 
into that helper...

/Thomas


>
> Jason