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;
Date:   Wed, 7 Apr 2021 13:32:37 -0700
From:   Michel Lespinasse <michel@lespinasse.org>
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Michel Lespinasse <michel@lespinasse.org>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Laurent Dufour <ldufour@linux.ibm.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Paul McKenney <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joelaf@google.com>,
        Rom Lemarchand <romlem@google.com>,
        Linux-Kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 11/37] x86/mm: attempt speculative mm faults first
Message-ID: <20210407203237.GC25738@lespinasse.org>
References: <20210407014502.24091-1-michel@lespinasse.org>
 <20210407014502.24091-12-michel@lespinasse.org>
 <YG3GTI8j1ohk4NhS@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20210407153528.GF2531743@casper.infradead.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20210407153528.GF2531743@casper.infradead.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:35:28PM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 07, 2021 at 04:48:44PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 06:44:36PM -0700, Michel Lespinasse wrote:
> > > --- a/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/mm/fault.c
> > > @@ -1219,6 +1219,8 @@ void do_user_addr_fault(struct pt_regs *regs,
> > >  	struct mm_struct *mm;
> > >  	vm_fault_t fault;
> > >  	unsigned int flags = FAULT_FLAG_DEFAULT;
> > > +	struct vm_area_struct pvma;
> > 
> > That's 200 bytes on-stack... I suppose that's just about acceptible, but
> > perhaps we need a comment in struct vm_area_struct to make people aware
> > this things lives on-stack and size really is an issue now.
> 
> Michel's gone off and done his own thing here.

I don't think that is an entirely fair representation. First we are
both aware of each other's work, there is no working in dark caves here.
But also, I don't even consider this patchset to be entirely my thing;
most of the main building blocks come from prior proposals before mine.

> The rest of us (Laurent, Liam & I) are working on top of the maple tree
> which shrinks vm_area_struct by five pointers, so just 160 bytes.

The idea of evaluating maple tree and speculative faults as a bundle
is actually worrying to me. I think both ideas are interesting and
worth looking into on their own, but I'm not convinced that they have
much to do with each other.

> Also, our approach doesn't involve copying VMAs in order to handle a fault.

See my other reply to Peter's message - copying VMAs is a convenient
way to reduce the size of the patchset, but it's not fundamental to
the approach at all.