Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20230609005158.2421285-1-surenb@google.com> <20230609005158.2421285-6-surenb@google.com>
 <ZIM/O54Q0waFq/tx@casper.infradead.org>
In-Reply-To: <ZIM/O54Q0waFq/tx@casper.infradead.org>
From:   Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 9 Jun 2023 11:49:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CAJuCfpE4VYz-Z4_aS3d9-8FGtQ-F4f7adYcJqRk3P3Ks7WPgQA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 5/6] mm: implement folio wait under VMA lock
To:     Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     akpm@linux-foundation.org, hannes@cmpxchg.org, mhocko@suse.com,
        josef@toxicpanda.com, jack@suse.cz, ldufour@linux.ibm.com,
        laurent.dufour@fr.ibm.com, michel@lespinasse.org,
        liam.howlett@oracle.com, jglisse@google.com, vbabka@suse.cz,
        minchan@google.com, dave@stgolabs.net, punit.agrawal@bytedance.com,
        lstoakes@gmail.com, hdanton@sina.com, apopple@nvidia.com,
        peterx@redhat.com, ying.huang@intel.com, david@redhat.com,
        yuzhao@google.com, dhowells@redhat.com, hughd@google.com,
        viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, brauner@kernel.org,
        pasha.tatashin@soleen.com, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        kernel-team@android.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 8:03=E2=80=AFAM Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>=
 wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 05:51:57PM -0700, Suren Baghdasaryan wrote:
> >  static inline bool folio_lock_or_retry(struct folio *folio,
> > -             struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned int flags)
> > +             struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned int flags,
> > +             bool *lock_dropped)
>
> I hate these double-return-value functions.
>
> How about this for an API:
>
> vm_fault_t folio_lock_fault(struct folio *folio, struct vm_fault *vmf)
> {
>         might_sleep();
>         if (folio_trylock(folio))
>                 return 0;
>         return __folio_lock_fault(folio, vmf);
> }
>
> Then the users look like ...
>
> > @@ -3580,8 +3581,10 @@ static vm_fault_t remove_device_exclusive_entry(=
struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >       if (!folio_try_get(folio))
> >               return 0;
> >
> > -     if (!folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vma->vm_mm, vmf->flags)) {
> > +     if (!folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vma, vmf->flags, &lock_dropped)) =
{
> >               folio_put(folio);
> > +             if (lock_dropped && vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK)
> > +                     return VM_FAULT_VMA_UNLOCKED | VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> >               return VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> >       }
>
>         ret =3D folio_lock_fault(folio, vmf);
>         if (ret)
>                 return ret;
>
> > @@ -3837,9 +3840,9 @@ vm_fault_t do_swap_page(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> >               goto out_release;
> >       }
> >
> > -     locked =3D folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vma->vm_mm, vmf->flags);
> > -
> > -     if (!locked) {
> > +     if (!folio_lock_or_retry(folio, vma, vmf->flags, &lock_dropped)) =
{
> > +             if (lock_dropped && vmf->flags & FAULT_FLAG_VMA_LOCK)
> > +                     ret |=3D VM_FAULT_VMA_UNLOCKED;
> >               ret |=3D VM_FAULT_RETRY;
> >               goto out_release;
> >       }
>
>         ret |=3D folio_lock_fault(folio, vmf);
>         if (ret & VM_FAULT_RETRY)
>                 goto out_release;
>
> ie instead of trying to reconstruct what __folio_lock_fault() did from
> its outputs, we just let folio_lock_fault() tell us what it did.

Thanks for taking a look!
Ok, I think what you are suggesting is to have a new set of
folio_lock_fault()/__folio_lock_fault() functions which return
vm_fault_t directly, __folio_lock_fault() will use
__folio_lock_or_retry() internally and will adjust its return value
based on __folio_lock_or_retry()'s return and the lock releasing rules
described in the comments for __folio_lock_or_retry(). Is my
understanding correct?