Re: PFs on pages pinned with get_user_pages()

[Frank Mehnert <Frank.Mehnert@Sun.COM>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2217 bytes --]

On Thursday 29 January 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 14:08 +0100, Frank Mehnert wrote:
> > Peter,
>
> (please retain CC's)
>
> > On Thursday 29 January 2009, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > On Thu, 2009-01-29 at 09:05 +0100, Frank Mehnert wrote:
> > > > please could someone explain me under which circumstances a
> > > > pagefault, either generated from kernel code or from userland code,
> > > > can occur on pages which are pinned with get_user_pages()?
> > > >
> > > > So far my understanding was that this can _never_ happen but I seems
> > > > to be wrong. Under high memory pressure I get PFs on such pages
> > > > raised from kernel code and the PFs are handled by do_swap_page().
> > > > When this happens, page_count is 3 but page_mapped() returns false.
> > >
> > > Under memory pressure the page reclaim will first unmap the physical
> > > page from the virtual address range, and then try to free it.
> >
> > Which means the page table entry is removed but the physical page
> > is not swapped out, right?
>
> Correct.
>
> > > Obviously the freeing bit fails if you hold a reference to it, but the
> > > unmap will work.
> >
> > Right.
> >
> > > After that, userspace will have to (minor) fault the stuff back in.

[...]

> > Question: Is it possible to prevent these minor page faults at all?
>
> Not without some serious tinkering to the VM -- and in the case of the
> dirty fault, not at all.
>
> Why are you asking?

I'm one of the VirtualBox developers. We are trying to fix the annoying
kerneloops warning 'BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context'
reported by the Fedora folks. This warning occurs when do_swap_page()
calls lock_page() and in_atomic() returns true.

This warning appears when we touch into memory which is pinned with
get_user_pages(). In VT-x/AMD-V mode we are executing some code in the
context of the Linux kernel. To prevent scheduling of the current CPU
core we disable the interripts. preempt_disable() would be probably the
better choice but this would oops as well if CONFIG_PREEMPT is enabled.

Kind regards,

Frank
-- 
Dr.-Ing. Frank Mehnert    Sun Microsystems    http://www.sun.com/

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]