Re: [PATCH v7 2/8] mm/hmm: add hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout() for mmap lock-drop support

[Stanislav Kinsburskii]

On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 01:38:35PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 12:47:01PM -0700, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
> > hmm_range_fault() requires the caller to hold the mmap read lock for the
> > duration of the call. This is incompatible with mappings whose fault
> > handler may release the mmap lock, notably userfaultfd-managed regions,
> > where handle_mm_fault() can return VM_FAULT_RETRY or VM_FAULT_COMPLETED
> > after dropping the lock. Drivers that need to populate device page tables
> > for such mappings have no way to do so today.
> 
> sashiko could not apply v7 for some reason but the remarks on v6
> seemed meaningful, did you see them were they delt with?
> 

Yes, I dealt with them.

> https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/178336023903.504354.7500950448226027718.stgit%40skinsburskii
> 
> > diff --git a/Documentation/mm/hmm.rst b/Documentation/mm/hmm.rst
> > index 7d61b7a8b65b..70885f153d03 100644
> > --- a/Documentation/mm/hmm.rst
> > +++ b/Documentation/mm/hmm.rst
> > @@ -208,6 +208,69 @@ invalidate() callback. That lock must be held before calling
> >  mmu_interval_read_retry() to avoid any race with a concurrent CPU page table
> >  update.
> >  
> > +Dropping the mmap lock during page faults
> > +=========================================
> > +
> > +Some VMAs have fault handlers that need to release the mmap lock while
> > +servicing a fault (for example, regions managed by ``userfaultfd``).
> > +``hmm_range_fault()`` cannot be used on such mappings because it must hold the
> > +mmap lock for the duration of the call. Drivers that need to support them
> > +should call::
> 
> Given the majority of callers use this API it should probably be the
> focus of the documentation and example, regulate the existing API to a
> 'BTW if you really need the mmap lock, and you really shouldn't, this
> exists too'
> 

Sure, I'll update the doc to reflect it this way.

> > @@ -32,6 +32,7 @@
> >  
> >  struct hmm_vma_walk {
> >  	struct hmm_range	*range;
> > +	int			*locked;
> 
> Let's use bool if you have to respin this
> 

Sure.

> > @@ -651,37 +663,33 @@ static int hmm_do_fault(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >  		fault_flags |= FAULT_FLAG_WRITE;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	for (; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE)
> > -		if (handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, fault_flags, NULL) &
> > -		    VM_FAULT_ERROR)
> > -			return -EFAULT;
> > +	for (; addr < end; addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > +		vm_fault_t ret;
> > +
> > +		ret = handle_mm_fault(vma, addr, fault_flags, NULL);
> > +
> > +		if (ret & (VM_FAULT_COMPLETED | VM_FAULT_RETRY)) {
> > +			*hmm_vma_walk->locked = 0;
> > +			return HMM_FAULT_UNLOCKED;
> > +		}
> > +
> > +		if (ret & VM_FAULT_ERROR) {
> > +			int err = vm_fault_to_errno(ret, 0);
> > +
> > +			if (err)
> > +				return err;
> > +			BUG();
> 
> Linux will be upset if he sees this.  
> 
> if (WARN_ON(!err))
>    err = -EINVAL
> 

It will. I copied it from GUP.
I'll change it the way you propose it.

> > +/**
> > + * hmm_range_fault - try to fault some address in a virtual address range
> > + * @range:	argument structure
> > + *
> > + * Returns 0 on success or one of the following error codes:
> > + *
> > + * -EINVAL:	Invalid arguments or mm or virtual address is in an invalid vma
> > + *		(e.g., device file vma).
> > + * -ENOMEM:	Out of memory.
> > + * -EPERM:	Invalid permission (e.g., asking for write and range is read
> > + *		only).
> > + * -EBUSY:	The range has been invalidated and the caller needs to wait for
> > + *		the invalidation to finish.
> > + * -EFAULT:     A page was requested to be valid and could not be made valid
> > + *              ie it has no backing VMA or it is illegal to access
> > + *
> > + * This is similar to get_user_pages(), except that it can read the page tables
> > + * without mutating them (ie causing faults).
> > + *
> > + * The mmap lock must be held by the caller and will remain held on return.
> > + * For a variant that allows the mmap lock to be dropped during faults (e.g.,
> > + * for userfaultfd support), see hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout().
> > + */
> 
> Add a comment discourging anyone from using this function and prefer
> hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout()
> 

Will do.

Thanks,
Stanislav

> Other than the concern about the timeout and minor nits this looks
> fine
> 
> Jason