Message-ID: <505d3d0f-23ee-0eec-0571-8058b8eedb97@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 22 Dec 2021 15:48:34 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.4.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 06/11] mm: support GUP-triggered unsharing via
 FAULT_FLAG_UNSHARE (!hugetlb)
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc:     Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Nadav Amit <namit@vmware.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>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.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>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        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>, Linux-MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>
References: <fca16906-8e7d-5d04-6990-dfa8392bad8b@redhat.com>
 <20211221010312.GC1432915@nvidia.com>
 <fd7e3195-4f36-3804-1793-d453d5bd3e9f@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wgQq3H6wfkW7+MmduVgBOqHeiXQN97yCMd+m1mM-1xCLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <900b7d4a-a5dc-5c7b-a374-c4a8cc149232@redhat.com>
 <20211221190706.GG1432915@nvidia.com>
 <3e0868e6-c714-1bf8-163f-389989bf5189@redhat.com>
 <dfe1c8d5-6fac-9040-0272-6d77bafa6a16@redhat.com>
 <20211222124141.GA685@quack2.suse.cz>
 <4a28e8a0-2efa-8b5e-10b5-38f1fc143a98@redhat.com>
 <20211222144255.GE685@quack2.suse.cz>
From:   David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Organization: Red Hat
In-Reply-To: <20211222144255.GE685@quack2.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 22.12.21 15:42, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Wed 22-12-21 14:09:41, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>>> IIUC, our COW logic makes sure that a shared anonymous page that might
>>>> still be used by a R/O FOLL_GET cannot be modified, because any attempt
>>>> to modify it would result in a copy.
>>>
>>> Well, we defined FOLL_PIN to mean the intent that the caller wants to access
>>> not only page state (for which is enough FOLL_GET and there are some users
>>> - mostly inside mm - who need this) but also page data. Eventually, we even
>>> wanted to make FOLL_GET unavailable to broad areas of kernel (and keep it
>>> internal to only MM for its dirty deeds ;)) to reduce the misuse of GUP.
>>>
>>> For file pages we need this data vs no-data access distinction so that
>>> filesystems can detect when someone can be accessing page data although the
>>> page is unmapped.  Practically, filesystems care most about when someone
>>> can be *modifying* page data (we need to make sure data is stable e.g. when
>>> writing back data to disk or doing data checksumming or other operations)
>>> so using FOLL_GET when wanting to only read page data should be OK for
>>> filesystems but honestly I would be reluctant to break the rule of "use
>>> FOLL_PIN when wanting to access page data" to keep things simple and
>>> reasonably easy to understand for parties such as filesystem developers or
>>> driver developers who all need to interact with pinned pages...
>>
>> Right, from an API perspective we really want people to use FOLL_PIN.
>>
>> To optimize this case in particular it would help if we would have the
>> FOLL flags on the unpin path. Then we could just decide internally
>> "well, short-term R/O FOLL_PIN can be really lightweight, we can treat
>> this like a FOLL_GET instead". And we would need that as well if we were
>> to keep different counters for R/O vs. R/W pinned.
> 
> Well, I guess the question here is: Which GUP user needs only R/O access to
> page data and is so performance critical that it would be worth it to
> sacrifice API clarity for speed? I'm not aware of any but I was not looking
> really hard...

I'd be interested in examples as well. Maybe databases that use O_DIRECT
after fork()?


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb