Re: [PATCH v5 04/10] userfaultfd/shmem: support UFFDIO_CONTINUE for shmem

[Hugh Dickins]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2021, Axel Rasmussen wrote:

> With this change, userspace can resolve a minor fault within a
> shmem-backed area with a UFFDIO_CONTINUE ioctl. The semantics for this
> match those for hugetlbfs - we look up the existing page in the page
> cache, and install a PTE for it.
> 
> This commit introduces a new helper: mcopy_atomic_install_pte.
> 
> Why handle UFFDIO_CONTINUE for shmem in mm/userfaultfd.c, instead of in
> shmem.c? The existing userfault implementation only relies on shmem.c
> for VM_SHARED VMAs. However, minor fault handling / CONTINUE work just
> fine for !VM_SHARED VMAs as well. We'd prefer to handle CONTINUE for
> shmem in one place, regardless of shared/private (to reduce code
> duplication).
> 
> Why add a new mcopy_atomic_install_pte helper? A problem we have with
> continue is that shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() and mcopy_atomic_pte() are
> *close* to what we want, but not exactly. We do want to setup the PTEs
> in a CONTINUE operation, but we don't want to e.g. allocate a new page,
> charge it (e.g. to the shmem inode), manipulate various flags, etc. Also
> we have the problem stated above: shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() and
> mcopy_atomic_pte() both handle one-half of the problem (shared /
> private) continue cares about. So, introduce mcontinue_atomic_pte(), to
> handle all of the shmem continue cases. Introduce the helper so it
> doesn't duplicate code with mcopy_atomic_pte().
> 
> In a future commit, shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() will also be modified to
> use this new helper. However, since this is a bigger refactor, it seems
> most clear to do it as a separate change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Axel Rasmussen <axelrasmussen@xxxxxxxxxx>

Acked-by: Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>

> ---
>  mm/userfaultfd.c | 172 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------
>  1 file changed, 127 insertions(+), 45 deletions(-)