Re: [PATCH 5/8] vmalloc: simplify vread()/vwrite()
From: Wu Fengguang
Date: Mon Jan 18 2010 - 20:33:19 EST
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 07:23:59AM -0700, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 09:35:12PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 05:45:26AM -0700, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 09:53:10PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > vread()/vwrite() is only called from kcore/kmem to access one page at a time.
> > > > So the logic can be vastly simplified.
> > > >
> > > > The changes are:
> > > > - remove the vmlist walk and rely solely on vmalloc_to_page()
> > > > - replace the VM_IOREMAP check with (page && page_is_ram(pfn))
> > > > - rename to vread_page()/vwrite_page()
> > > >
> > > > The page_is_ram() check is necessary because kmap_atomic() is not
> > > > designed to work with non-RAM pages.
> > >
> > > I don't know if you can really do this. Previously vmlist_lock would be
> > > taken, which will prevent these vm areas from being freed.
> > >
> > > > Note that even for a RAM page, we don't own the page, and cannot assume
> > > > it's a _PAGE_CACHE_WB page.
> > >
> > > So why is this not a problem for your patch? I don't see how you handle
> > > it.
> > Sorry I didn't handle it. Just hope to catch attentions from someone
> > (ie. you :).
> > It's not a problem for x86_64 at all. For others I wonder if any
> > driver will vmalloc HIGHMEM pages with !_PAGE_CACHE_WB attribute..
> > So I noted the possible problem and leave it alone.
> Well it doesn't need to be vmalloc. Any kind of vmap like ioremap. And
> these can be accompanied by changing the caching attribute. Like agp
> code, for an example. But I don't know if that ever becomes a problem
> in practice.
Yes vmap in general can change caching attribute. However I only care
about vmap that maps RAM pages, since my patch treats non-RAM pages as
hole and won't access them.
> > > What's the problem with the current code, exactly? I would prefer that
> > - unnecessary complexity to handle multi-page case, since it's always
> > called to access one single page;
> Fair point there. It just wasn't clear what exactly is your rationale
> because this was in a set of other patches.
> > - the kmap_atomic() cache consistency problem, which I expressed some
> > concern (without further action)
> Which kmap_atomic problem? Can you explain again? Virtual cache aliasing
> problem you mean? Or caching attribute conflicts?
kmap_atomic() assumes you own the page and always use _PAGE_CACHE_WB.
So there may be conflicts if the page was !_PAGE_CACHE_WB.
> The whole thing looks stupid though, apparently kmap is used to avoid "the
> lock". But the lock is already held. We should just use the vmap
Yes. I wonder why Kame introduced kmap_atomic() in d0107eb07 -- given
that he at the same time fixed the order of removing vm_struct and
vmap in dd32c279983b.
> > > you continue using the same vmlist locking and checking for validating
> > > addresses.
> > It's a reasonable suggestion. Kame, would you agree on killing the
> > kmap_atomic() and revert to the vmlist walk?
> Yes, vmlist locking is always required to have a pin on the pages, and
> IMO it should be quite easy to check for IOREMAP, so we should leave
> that check there to avoid the possibility of regressions.
I have no problem if Kame could dismiss my question :)
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/