Re: [PATCH v8 8/8] drm/gpusvm: Use hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout() for range faults
From: Stanislav Kinsburskii
Date: Mon Jul 13 2026 - 13:04:54 EST
On Mon, Jul 13, 2026 at 09:30:35AM -0700, Matthew Brost wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 02:27:19PM -0700, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>
> Please send series like this to intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx list too
> as this will trigger our CI which expercises the change paths changed in
> this series.
>
> > Several GPU SVM paths take mmap_read_lock() only to call hmm_range_fault(),
> > then retry -EBUSY until HMM_RANGE_DEFAULT_TIMEOUT expires. Those paths use
> > MMU interval notifiers whose mm matches the mm that was locked for the HMM
> > fault.
> >
> > Use hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout() for those faults and pass the
> > remaining retry budget to HMM. The helper owns mmap_lock acquisition and
> > refreshes range->notifier_seq internally for each retry, while GPU SVM
> > keeps its existing driver-lock validation with mmu_interval_read_retry()
> > after a successful fault.
> >
> > Leave drm_gpusvm_check_pages() on hmm_range_fault() because that path is
> > called with the mmap lock already held by its caller.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Kinsburskii <skinsburskii@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c | 52 ++++++------------------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c
> > index 958cb605aedd..6b7a6eaebcd9 100644
> > --- a/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c
> > +++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/drm_gpusvm.c
> > @@ -788,22 +788,8 @@ enum drm_gpusvm_scan_result drm_gpusvm_scan_mm(struct drm_gpusvm_range *range,
> > hmm_range.hmm_pfns = pfns;
> >
> > retry:
> > - hmm_range.notifier_seq = mmu_interval_read_begin(notifier);
> > - mmap_read_lock(range->gpusvm->mm);
> > -
> > - while (true) {
> > - err = hmm_range_fault(&hmm_range);
> > - if (err == -EBUSY) {
> > - if (time_after(jiffies, timeout))
> > - break;
> > -
> > - hmm_range.notifier_seq =
> > - mmu_interval_read_begin(notifier);
> > - continue;
> > - }
> > - break;
> > - }
> > - mmap_read_unlock(range->gpusvm->mm);
> > + err = hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout(&hmm_range,
> > + max(timeout - jiffies, 1L));
> > if (err)
> > goto err_free;
> >
> > @@ -1439,21 +1425,8 @@ int drm_gpusvm_get_pages(struct drm_gpusvm *gpusvm,
> > }
> >
> > hmm_range.hmm_pfns = pfns;
> > - while (true) {
> > - mmap_read_lock(mm);
> > - err = hmm_range_fault(&hmm_range);
> > - mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > -
> > - if (err == -EBUSY) {
> > - if (time_after(jiffies, timeout))
> > - break;
> > -
> > - hmm_range.notifier_seq =
> > - mmu_interval_read_begin(notifier);
> > - continue;
> > - }
> > - break;
> > - }
> > + err = hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout(&hmm_range,
> > + max_t(long, timeout - jiffies, 1));
>
> Unaligned indentation.
>
> So I'd write this like this to avoid weird wraps:
>
> ctimeout = max_t(long, timeout - jiffies, 1));
> err = hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout(&hmm_range, ctimeout);
>
> > mmput(mm);
> > if (err)
> > goto err_free;
> > @@ -1736,24 +1709,13 @@ int drm_gpusvm_range_evict(struct drm_gpusvm *gpusvm,
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > hmm_range.hmm_pfns = pfns;
> > - while (!time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> > - hmm_range.notifier_seq = mmu_interval_read_begin(notifier);
> > - if (time_after(jiffies, timeout)) {
> > - err = -ETIME;
> > - break;
> > - }
> > -
> > - mmap_read_lock(mm);
> > - err = hmm_range_fault(&hmm_range);
> > - mmap_read_unlock(mm);
> > - if (err != -EBUSY)
> > - break;
> > - }
> > + err = hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout(&hmm_range,
> > + max_t(long, timeout - jiffies, 1));
> >
>
> Same here.
>
> Nits, aside LGTM.
>
Will change as requested and send to intel-xe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx next time.
Thanks,
Stanislav
> Matt
>
> > kvfree(pfns);
> > mmput(mm);
> >
> > - return err;
> > + return err == -EBUSY ? -ETIME : err;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(drm_gpusvm_range_evict);
> >
> >
> >