From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: jack@suse.cz, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dax: add dax_get_unmapped_area for pmd mappings
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:55:03 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1460559303.24985.52.camel@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160413031801.GO2781@linux.intel.com>
On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 23:18 -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:39:15PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >
> > + * When the target file is not a DAX file, @addr is specified, the
> > + * request is not suitable for pmd mappings, or mm-
> > >get_unmapped_area()
> > + * failed with extended @len, it simply calls the default handler,
> > + * mm->get_unmapped_area(), with the original arguments.
>
> I think you can lose this paragraph. It describes what the function
> does, not why it does it ... and we can see what the function does from
> reading the code.
Agreed. I will remove this paragraph.
> I think this is one of those functions which is actually improved with
> gotos, purely to reduce the indentation level.
>
> unsigned long dax_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, unsigned long
> addr,
> unsigned long len, unsigned long pgoff, unsigned long
> flags)
> {
> unsigned long off, off_end, off_pmd, len_pmd, addr_pmd;
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD) ||
> !filp || addr || !IS_DAX(filp->f_mapping->host))
> goto out;
>
> off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> off_end = off + len;
> off_pmd = round_up(off, PMD_SIZE);
> if ((off_end <= off_pmd) || ((off_end - off_pmd) < PMD_SIZE))
> goto out;
>
> len_pmd = len + PMD_SIZE;
> addr_pmd = current->mm->get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len_pmd,
> pgoff, flags);
>
> if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(addr_pmd)) {
> addr_pmd += (off - addr_pmd) & (PMD_SIZE - 1);
> return addr_pmd;
> }
>
> out:
> return current->mm->get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len, pgoff,
> flags);
> }
Sounds good.
> Now ... back to the original version, some questions:
>
> >
> > +unsigned long dax_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, unsigned long
> > addr,
> > + unsigned long len, unsigned long pgoff, unsigned long
> > flags)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long off, off_end, off_pmd, len_pmd, addr_pmd;
> > +
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD) &&
> > + filp && !addr && IS_DAX(filp->f_mapping->host)) {
> > + off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + off_end = off + len;
>
> Can off + len wrap here, or did that get checked earlier?
Yes, do_mmap() has checked this condition earlier. But, I think I need to
check it for (off + len_pmd).
> >
> > + off_pmd = round_up(off, PMD_SIZE);
> > +
> > + if ((off_end > off_pmd) && ((off_end - off_pmd) >=
> > PMD_SIZE)) {
>
> We're only going to look for a PMD-aligned mapping if the mapping is at
> least double PMD_SIZE? I don't understand that decision. Seems to me
> that if I ask to map offset 4MB, length 2MB, I should get a PMD-aligned
> mapping.
It checks if this request can be covered by a PMD page. 'off_pmd' is the
first PMD-aligned offset. There needs to be at least 2MB from this offset
to the end, 'off_end', in order to cover with a PMD page.
In your example, 'off_pmd' is still 4MB, which has 2MB to the end. So, so
this request can be covered by a PMD page.
Another example, say, offset 4KB and length 2MB. 'off_pmd' is 2MB, which
has only 4KB to the end. So, this request cannot be covered by a PMD page.
> Speaking of offset, we don't have any checks that offset is a multiple
> of PMD_SIZE. I know that theoretically we could map offset 1.5MB, length
> 3MB and see the first 0.5MB filled with small pages, then the next 2MB
> filled with one large page, and the tail filled with small pages, but I
> think we're better off only looking for PMD-alignment if the user asked
> for an aligned offset in the file.
Yes, that's what it checks. In this case, 'off_pmd' is set to 2MB, which
has 2.5MB to the end. So, it can be covered by a PMD page. The offset
itself does not have to be aligned by 2MB.
> > + len_pmd = len + PMD_SIZE;
> > +
> > + addr_pmd = current->mm->get_unmapped_area(
> > + filp, addr, len_pmd, pgoff,
> > flags);
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(addr_pmd)) {
> > + addr_pmd += (off - addr_pmd) &
> > (PMD_SIZE - 1);
>
> ... then you wouldn't need this calculation ;-)
Applications should not be required to provide a 2MB-aligned offset.
Thanks,
-Toshi
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: jack@suse.cz, linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, david@fromorbit.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
akpm@linux-foundation.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dax: add dax_get_unmapped_area for pmd mappings
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:55:03 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1460559303.24985.52.camel@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160413031801.GO2781@linux.intel.com>
On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 23:18 -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:39:15PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >
> > + * When the target file is not a DAX file, @addr is specified, the
> > + * request is not suitable for pmd mappings, or mm-
> > >get_unmapped_area()
> > + * failed with extended @len, it simply calls the default handler,
> > + * mm->get_unmapped_area(), with the original arguments.
>
> I think you can lose this paragraph. It describes what the function
> does, not why it does it ... and we can see what the function does from
> reading the code.
Agreed. I will remove this paragraph.
> I think this is one of those functions which is actually improved with
> gotos, purely to reduce the indentation level.
>
> unsigned long dax_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, unsigned long
> addr,
> unsigned long len, unsigned long pgoff, unsigned long
> flags)
> {
> unsigned long off, off_end, off_pmd, len_pmd, addr_pmd;
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD) ||
> !filp || addr || !IS_DAX(filp->f_mapping->host))
> goto out;
>
> off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> off_end = off + len;
> off_pmd = round_up(off, PMD_SIZE);
> if ((off_end <= off_pmd) || ((off_end - off_pmd) < PMD_SIZE))
> goto out;
>
> len_pmd = len + PMD_SIZE;
> addr_pmd = current->mm->get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len_pmd,
> pgoff, flags);
>
> if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(addr_pmd)) {
> addr_pmd += (off - addr_pmd) & (PMD_SIZE - 1);
> return addr_pmd;
> }
>
> out:
> return current->mm->get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len, pgoff,
> flags);
> }
Sounds good.
> Now ... back to the original version, some questions:
>
> >
> > +unsigned long dax_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, unsigned long
> > addr,
> > + unsigned long len, unsigned long pgoff, unsigned long
> > flags)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long off, off_end, off_pmd, len_pmd, addr_pmd;
> > +
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD) &&
> > + filp && !addr && IS_DAX(filp->f_mapping->host)) {
> > + off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + off_end = off + len;
>
> Can off + len wrap here, or did that get checked earlier?
Yes, do_mmap() has checked this condition earlier. But, I think I need to
check it for (off + len_pmd).
> >
> > + off_pmd = round_up(off, PMD_SIZE);
> > +
> > + if ((off_end > off_pmd) && ((off_end - off_pmd) >=
> > PMD_SIZE)) {
>
> We're only going to look for a PMD-aligned mapping if the mapping is at
> least double PMD_SIZE? I don't understand that decision. Seems to me
> that if I ask to map offset 4MB, length 2MB, I should get a PMD-aligned
> mapping.
It checks if this request can be covered by a PMD page. 'off_pmd' is the
first PMD-aligned offset. There needs to be at least 2MB from this offset
to the end, 'off_end', in order to cover with a PMD page.
In your example, 'off_pmd' is still 4MB, which has 2MB to the end. So, so
this request can be covered by a PMD page.
Another example, say, offset 4KB and length 2MB. 'off_pmd' is 2MB, which
has only 4KB to the end. So, this request cannot be covered by a PMD page.
> Speaking of offset, we don't have any checks that offset is a multiple
> of PMD_SIZE. I know that theoretically we could map offset 1.5MB, length
> 3MB and see the first 0.5MB filled with small pages, then the next 2MB
> filled with one large page, and the tail filled with small pages, but I
> think we're better off only looking for PMD-alignment if the user asked
> for an aligned offset in the file.
Yes, that's what it checks. In this case, 'off_pmd' is set to 2MB, which
has 2.5MB to the end. So, it can be covered by a PMD page. The offset
itself does not have to be aligned by 2MB.
> > + len_pmd = len + PMD_SIZE;
> > +
> > + addr_pmd = current->mm->get_unmapped_area(
> > + filp, addr, len_pmd, pgoff,
> > flags);
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(addr_pmd)) {
> > + addr_pmd += (off - addr_pmd) &
> > (PMD_SIZE - 1);
>
> ... then you wouldn't need this calculation ;-)
Applications should not be required to provide a 2MB-aligned offset.
Thanks,
-Toshi
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, david@fromorbit.com,
jack@suse.cz, tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dax: add dax_get_unmapped_area for pmd mappings
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:55:03 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1460559303.24985.52.camel@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160413031801.GO2781@linux.intel.com>
On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 23:18 -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:39:15PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >
> > + * When the target file is not a DAX file, @addr is specified, the
> > + * request is not suitable for pmd mappings, or mm-
> > >get_unmapped_area()
> > + * failed with extended @len, it simply calls the default handler,
> > + * mm->get_unmapped_area(), with the original arguments.
>
> I think you can lose this paragraph. It describes what the function
> does, not why it does it ... and we can see what the function does from
> reading the code.
Agreed. I will remove this paragraph.
> I think this is one of those functions which is actually improved with
> gotos, purely to reduce the indentation level.
>
> unsigned long dax_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, unsigned long
> addr,
> unsigned long len, unsigned long pgoff, unsigned long
> flags)
> {
> unsigned long off, off_end, off_pmd, len_pmd, addr_pmd;
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD) ||
> !filp || addr || !IS_DAX(filp->f_mapping->host))
> goto out;
>
> off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> off_end = off + len;
> off_pmd = round_up(off, PMD_SIZE);
> if ((off_end <= off_pmd) || ((off_end - off_pmd) < PMD_SIZE))
> goto out;
>
> len_pmd = len + PMD_SIZE;
> addr_pmd = current->mm->get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len_pmd,
> pgoff, flags);
>
> if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(addr_pmd)) {
> addr_pmd += (off - addr_pmd) & (PMD_SIZE - 1);
> return addr_pmd;
> }
>
> out:
> return current->mm->get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len, pgoff,
> flags);
> }
Sounds good.
> Now ... back to the original version, some questions:
>
> >
> > +unsigned long dax_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, unsigned long
> > addr,
> > + unsigned long len, unsigned long pgoff, unsigned long
> > flags)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long off, off_end, off_pmd, len_pmd, addr_pmd;
> > +
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD) &&
> > + filp && !addr && IS_DAX(filp->f_mapping->host)) {
> > + off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + off_end = off + len;
>
> Can off + len wrap here, or did that get checked earlier?
Yes, do_mmap() has checked this condition earlier. But, I think I need to
check it for (off + len_pmd).
> >
> > + off_pmd = round_up(off, PMD_SIZE);
> > +
> > + if ((off_end > off_pmd) && ((off_end - off_pmd) >=
> > PMD_SIZE)) {
>
> We're only going to look for a PMD-aligned mapping if the mapping is at
> least double PMD_SIZE? I don't understand that decision. Seems to me
> that if I ask to map offset 4MB, length 2MB, I should get a PMD-aligned
> mapping.
It checks if this request can be covered by a PMD page. 'off_pmd' is the
first PMD-aligned offset. There needs to be at least 2MB from this offset
to the end, 'off_end', in order to cover with a PMD page.
In your example, 'off_pmd' is still 4MB, which has 2MB to the end. So, so
this request can be covered by a PMD page.
Another example, say, offset 4KB and length 2MB. 'off_pmd' is 2MB, which
has only 4KB to the end. So, this request cannot be covered by a PMD page.
> Speaking of offset, we don't have any checks that offset is a multiple
> of PMD_SIZE. I know that theoretically we could map offset 1.5MB, length
> 3MB and see the first 0.5MB filled with small pages, then the next 2MB
> filled with one large page, and the tail filled with small pages, but I
> think we're better off only looking for PMD-alignment if the user asked
> for an aligned offset in the file.
Yes, that's what it checks. In this case, 'off_pmd' is set to 2MB, which
has 2.5MB to the end. So, it can be covered by a PMD page. The offset
itself does not have to be aligned by 2MB.
> > + len_pmd = len + PMD_SIZE;
> > +
> > + addr_pmd = current->mm->get_unmapped_area(
> > + filp, addr, len_pmd, pgoff,
> > flags);
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(addr_pmd)) {
> > + addr_pmd += (off - addr_pmd) &
> > (PMD_SIZE - 1);
>
> ... then you wouldn't need this calculation ;-)
Applications should not be required to provide a 2MB-aligned offset.
Thanks,
-Toshi
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@hpe.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@linux.intel.com>
Cc: akpm@linux-foundation.org, dan.j.williams@intel.com,
viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk, ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com,
kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com, david@fromorbit.com,
jack@suse.cz, tytso@mit.edu, adilger.kernel@dilger.ca,
linux-nvdimm@ml01.01.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/5] dax: add dax_get_unmapped_area for pmd mappings
Date: Wed, 13 Apr 2016 08:55:03 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1460559303.24985.52.camel@hpe.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160413031801.GO2781@linux.intel.com>
On Tue, 2016-04-12 at 23:18 -0400, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 02:39:15PM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
> >
> > + * When the target file is not a DAX file, @addr is specified, the
> > + * request is not suitable for pmd mappings, or mm-
> > >get_unmapped_area()
> > + * failed with extended @len, it simply calls the default handler,
> > + * mm->get_unmapped_area(), with the original arguments.
>
> I think you can lose this paragraph. It describes what the function
> does, not why it does it ... and we can see what the function does from
> reading the code.
Agreed. I will remove this paragraph.
> I think this is one of those functions which is actually improved with
> gotos, purely to reduce the indentation level.
>
> unsigned long dax_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, unsigned long
> addr,
> unsigned long len, unsigned long pgoff, unsigned long
> flags)
> {
> unsigned long off, off_end, off_pmd, len_pmd, addr_pmd;
>
> if (!IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD) ||
> !filp || addr || !IS_DAX(filp->f_mapping->host))
> goto out;
>
> off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> off_end = off + len;
> off_pmd = round_up(off, PMD_SIZE);
> if ((off_end <= off_pmd) || ((off_end - off_pmd) < PMD_SIZE))
> goto out;
>
> len_pmd = len + PMD_SIZE;
> addr_pmd = current->mm->get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len_pmd,
> pgoff, flags);
>
> if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(addr_pmd)) {
> addr_pmd += (off - addr_pmd) & (PMD_SIZE - 1);
> return addr_pmd;
> }
>
> out:
> return current->mm->get_unmapped_area(filp, addr, len, pgoff,
> flags);
> }
Sounds good.
> Now ... back to the original version, some questions:
>
> >
> > +unsigned long dax_get_unmapped_area(struct file *filp, unsigned long
> > addr,
> > + unsigned long len, unsigned long pgoff, unsigned long
> > flags)
> > +{
> > + unsigned long off, off_end, off_pmd, len_pmd, addr_pmd;
> > +
> > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_FS_DAX_PMD) &&
> > + filp && !addr && IS_DAX(filp->f_mapping->host)) {
> > + off = pgoff << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + off_end = off + len;
>
> Can off + len wrap here, or did that get checked earlier?
Yes, do_mmap() has checked this condition earlier. But, I think I need to
check it for (off + len_pmd).
> >
> > + off_pmd = round_up(off, PMD_SIZE);
> > +
> > + if ((off_end > off_pmd) && ((off_end - off_pmd) >=
> > PMD_SIZE)) {
>
> We're only going to look for a PMD-aligned mapping if the mapping is at
> least double PMD_SIZE? I don't understand that decision. Seems to me
> that if I ask to map offset 4MB, length 2MB, I should get a PMD-aligned
> mapping.
It checks if this request can be covered by a PMD page. 'off_pmd' is the
first PMD-aligned offset. There needs to be at least 2MB from this offset
to the end, 'off_end', in order to cover with a PMD page.
In your example, 'off_pmd' is still 4MB, which has 2MB to the end. So, so
this request can be covered by a PMD page.
Another example, say, offset 4KB and length 2MB. 'off_pmd' is 2MB, which
has only 4KB to the end. So, this request cannot be covered by a PMD page.
> Speaking of offset, we don't have any checks that offset is a multiple
> of PMD_SIZE. I know that theoretically we could map offset 1.5MB, length
> 3MB and see the first 0.5MB filled with small pages, then the next 2MB
> filled with one large page, and the tail filled with small pages, but I
> think we're better off only looking for PMD-alignment if the user asked
> for an aligned offset in the file.
Yes, that's what it checks. In this case, 'off_pmd' is set to 2MB, which
has 2.5MB to the end. So, it can be covered by a PMD page. The offset
itself does not have to be aligned by 2MB.
> > + len_pmd = len + PMD_SIZE;
> > +
> > + addr_pmd = current->mm->get_unmapped_area(
> > + filp, addr, len_pmd, pgoff,
> > flags);
> > +
> > + if (!IS_ERR_VALUE(addr_pmd)) {
> > + addr_pmd += (off - addr_pmd) &
> > (PMD_SIZE - 1);
>
> ... then you wouldn't need this calculation ;-)
Applications should not be required to provide a 2MB-aligned offset.
Thanks,
-Toshi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-13 14:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-12 20:39 [PATCH v2 0/5] Align mmap address for DAX pmd mappings Toshi Kani
2016-04-12 20:39 ` Toshi Kani
2016-04-12 20:39 ` Toshi Kani
2016-04-12 20:39 ` Toshi Kani
2016-04-12 20:39 ` [PATCH v2 1/5] dax: add dax_get_unmapped_area for " Toshi Kani
2016-04-12 20:39 ` Toshi Kani
2016-04-12 20:39 ` Toshi Kani
2016-04-12 20:39 ` Toshi Kani
2016-04-13 3:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2016-04-13 3:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2016-04-13 3:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2016-04-13 3:18 ` Matthew Wilcox
2016-04-13 14:55 ` Toshi Kani [this message]
2016-04-13 14:55 ` Toshi Kani
2016-04-13 14:55 ` Toshi Kani
2016-04-13 14:55 ` Toshi Kani
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1460559303.24985.52.camel@hpe.com \
--to=toshi.kani@hpe.com \
--cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
--cc=ross.zwisler@linux.intel.com \
--cc=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
--cc=willy@linux.intel.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.