Date:   Sun, 19 Dec 2021 11:30:21 +0000
From:   Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc:     Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@google.com>,
        Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>,
        Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.ibm.com>,
        Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        "Kirill A . Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
        Rik van Riel <riel@surriel.com>,
        Roman Gushchin <guro@fb.com>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>,
        Donald Dutile <ddutile@redhat.com>,
        Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] mm: support GUP-triggered unsharing via
 FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE (!hugetlb)
Message-ID: <Yb8XzTRX8TZOYIQ/@casper.infradead.org>
References: <20211218030509.GA1432915@nvidia.com>
 <5C0A673F-8326-4484-B976-DA844298DB29@vmware.com>
 <CAHk-=wj7eSOhbWDeADL_BJKLzdDF5s_5R9v7d-4P3L6v1T3mpQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20211218184233.GB1432915@nvidia.com>
 <5CA1D89F-9DDB-4F91-8929-FE29BB79A653@vmware.com>
 <CAHk-=wh-ETqwd6EC2PR6JJzCFHVxJgdbUcMpW5MS7gCa76EDsQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <4D97206A-3B32-4818-9980-8F24BC57E289@vmware.com>
 <CAHk-=whxvVQReBqZeaV41=sAWfT4xTfn6sMSWDfkHKVS3zX85w@mail.gmail.com>
 <5A7D771C-FF95-465E-95F6-CD249FE28381@vmware.com>
 <341cf567-468e-b5cf-6813-b26c49e851b5@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <341cf567-468e-b5cf-6813-b26c49e851b5@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Dec 19, 2021 at 12:01:59AM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 12/18/21 22:02, Nadav Amit wrote:
> > I found my old messy code for the software-PTE thing.
> > 
> > I see that eventually I decided to hold a pointer to the “extra PTEs”
> > of each page in the PMD-page-struct. [ I also implemented the 2-adjacent
> > pages approach but this code is long gone. ]
>
> a) The PMD-page-struct approach won't help as much, because (assuming
> that we're using it in an attempt to get a true, perfect pin count), you
> are combining the pin counts of a PMD's worth of pages. OTOH...maybe
> that actually *is* OK, assuming you don't overflow--except that you can
> only answer the "is it dma-pinned?" question at a PMD level. That's a
> contradiction of your stated desire above to have very granular control.
> 
> Also, because of not having bit 0 available in page._pt_pad_1, I think
> the count would have to be implemented as adding and subtracting 2,
> instead of 1 (in order to keep the value even), further reducing the
> counter range.

I think you misunderstood Nadav's approach.  He's talking about making
an extra side-allocation per PMD if you're using uffd, and storing
extra information in it.  I think it's a worthwile approach.