Re: [PATCH 0/6] rust: page: Support borrowing `struct page` and physaddr conversion

[David Hildenbrand]

On 04.02.25 18:59, Asahi Lina wrote:
> On 2/4/25 11:38 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > > > If the answer is "no" then that's fine. It's still an unsafe function
> > > > > and we need to document in the safety section that it should only be
> > > > > used for memory that is either known to be allocated and pinned and
> > > > > will
> > > > > not be freed while the `struct page` is borrowed, or memory that is
> > > > > reserved and not owned by the buddy allocator, so in practice correct
> > > > > use would not be racy with memory hot-remove anyway.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is already the case for the drm/asahi use case, where the pfns
> > > > > looked up will only ever be one of:
> > > > >
> > > > > - GEM objects that are mapped to the GPU and whose physical pages are
> > > > > therefore pinned (and the VM is locked while this happens so the
> > > > > objects
> > > > > cannot become unpinned out from under the running code),
> > > >
> > > > How exactly are these pages pinned/obtained?
> > >
> > > Under the hood it's shmem. For pinning, it winds up at
> > > `drm_gem_get_pages()`, which I think does a `shmem_read_folio_gfp()` on
> > > a mapping set as unevictable.
> >
> > Thanks. So we grab another folio reference via shmem_read_folio_gfp()-
> > > shmem_get_folio_gfp().
> >
> > Hm, I wonder if we might end up holding folios residing in ZONE_MOVABLE/
> > MIGRATE_CMA longer than we should.
> >
> > Compared to memfd_pin_folios(), which simulates FOLL_LONGTERM and makes
> > sure to migrate pages out of ZONE_MOVABLE/MIGRATE_CMA.
> >
> > But that's a different discussion, just pointing it out, maybe I'm
> > missing something :)
>
> I think this is a little over my head. Though I only just realized that
> we seem to be keeping the GEM objects pinned forever, even after unmap,
> in the drm-shmem core API (I see no drm-shmem entry point that would
> allow the sgt to be freed and its corresponding pages ref to be dropped,
> other than a purge of purgeable objects or final destruction of the
> object). I'll poke around since this feels wrong, I thought we were
> supposed to be able to have shrinker support for swapping out whole GPU
> VMs in the modern GPU MM model, but I guess there's no implementation of
> that for gem-shmem drivers yet...?

I recall that shrinker as well, ... or at least a discussion around it.

[...]

> > If it's only for crash dumps etc. that might even be opt-in, it makes
> > the whole thing a lot less scary. Maybe this could be opt-in somewhere,
> > to "unlock" this interface? Just an idea.
>
> Just to make sure we're on the same page, I don't think there's anything
> to unlock in the Rust abstraction side (this series). At the end of the
> day, if nothing else, the unchecked interface (which the regular
> non-crash page table management code uses for performance) will let you
> use any pfn you want, it's up to documentation and human review to
> specify how it should be used by drivers. What Rust gives us here is the
> mandatory `unsafe {}`, so any attempts to use this API will necessarily
> stick out during review as potentially dangerous code that needs extra
> scrutiny.
>
> For the client driver itself, I could gate the devcoredump stuff behind
> a module parameter or something... but I don't think it's really worth
> it. We don't have a way to reboot the firmware or recover from this
> condition (platform limitations), so end users are stuck rebooting to
> get back a usable machine anyway. If something goes wrong in the
> crashdump code and the machine oopses or locks up worse... it doesn't
> really make much of a difference for normal end users. I don't think
> this will ever really happen given the constraints I described, but if
> somehow it does (some other bug somewhere?), well... the machine was
> already in an unrecoverable state anyway.
>
> It would be nice to have userspace tooling deployed by default that
> saves off the devcoredump somewhere, so we can have a chance at
> debugging hard-to-hit firmware crashes... if it's opt-in, it would only
> really be useful for developers and CI machines.

Is this something that possibly kdump can save or analyze? Because that 
is our default "oops, kernel crashed, let's dump the old content so we 
can dump it" mechanism on production systems.

but ... I am not familiar with devcoredump. So I don't know when/how it 
runs, and if the source system is still alive (and remains alive --  in 
contrast to a kernel crash).

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb