Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions
From: Matthew Wilcox
Date: Mon Dec 17 2018 - 14:52:00 EST
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:48:00PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:34:43AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 01:11:50PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 08:58:19AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > Sure, that's a possibility, but that doesn't close off any race
> > > > conditions because there can be DMA into the page in progress while
> > > > the page is being bounced, right? AFAICT this ext3+DIF/DIX case is
> > > > different in that there is no 3rd-party access to the page while it
> > > > is under IO (ext3 arbitrates all access to it's metadata), and so
> > > > nothing can actually race for modification of the page between
> > > > submission and bouncing at the block layer.
> > > >
> > > > In this case, the moment the page is unlocked, anyone else can map
> > > > it and start (R)DMA on it, and that can happen before the bio is
> > > > bounced by the block layer. So AFAICT, block layer bouncing doesn't
> > > > solve the problem of racing writeback and DMA direct to the page we
> > > > are doing IO on. Yes, it reduces the race window substantially, but
> > > > it doesn't get rid of it.
> > >
> > > So the event flow is:
> > > - userspace create object that match a range of virtual address
> > > against a given kernel sub-system (let's say infiniband) and
> > > let's assume that the range is an mmap() of a regular file
> > > - device driver do GUP on the range (let's assume it is a write
> > > GUP) so if the page is not already map with write permission
> > > in the page table than a page fault is trigger and page_mkwrite
> > > happens
> > > - Once GUP return the page to the device driver and once the
> > > device driver as updated the hardware states to allow access
> > > to this page then from that point on hardware can write to the
> > > page at _any_ time, it is fully disconnected from any fs event
> > > like write back, it fully ignore things like page_mkclean
> > >
> > > This is how it is to day, we allowed people to push upstream such
> > > users of GUP. This is a fact we have to live with, we can not stop
> > > hardware access to the page, we can not force the hardware to follow
> > > page_mkclean and force a page_mkwrite once write back ends. This is
> > > the situation we are inheriting (and i am personnaly not happy with
> > > that).
> > >
> > > >From my point of view we are left with 2 choices:
> > > [C1] break all drivers that do not abide by the page_mkclean and
> > > page_mkwrite
> > > [C2] mitigate as much as possible the issue
> > >
> > > For [C2] the idea is to keep track of GUP per page so we know if we
> > > can expect the page to be written to at any time. Here is the event
> > > flow:
> > > - driver GUP the page and program the hardware, page is mark as
> > > GUPed
> > > ...
> > > - write back kicks in on the dirty page, lock the page and every
> > > thing as usual , sees it is GUPed and inform the block layer to
> > > use a bounce page
> > No. The solution John, Dan & I have been looking at is to take the
> > dirty page off the LRU while it is pinned by GUP. It will never be
> > found for writeback.
> > That's not the end of the story though. Other parts of the kernel (eg
> > msync) also need to be taught to stay away from pages which are pinned
> > by GUP. But the idea is that no page gets written back to storage while
> > it's pinned by GUP. Only when the last GUP ends is the page returned
> > to the list of dirty pages.
> > > - block layer copy the page to a bounce page effectively creating
> > > a snapshot of what is the content of the real page. This allows
> > > everything in block layer that need stable content to work on
> > > the bounce page (raid, stripping, encryption, ...)
> > > - once write back is done the page is not marked clean but stays
> > > dirty, this effectively disable things like COW for filesystem
> > > and other feature that expect page_mkwrite between write back.
> > > AFAIK it is believe that it is something acceptable
> > So none of this is necessary.
> With the solution you are proposing we loose GUP fast and we have to
> allocate a structure for each page that is under GUP, and the LRU
> changes too. Moreover by not writing back there is a greater chance
> of data loss.
Why can't you store the hmm_data in a side data structure? Why does it
have to be in struct page?