Re: [PATCH 5/5] vfio-pci: Best-effort huge pfnmaps with !MAP_FIXED mappings

Jason Gunthorpe
2025-06-13T16:10:01Z

On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 11:26:40AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 11:29:03AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 09:41:11AM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> >
> > > + /* Choose the alignment */
> > > + if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARCH_SUPPORTS_PUD_PFNMAP) && phys_len >= PUD_SIZE) {
> > > + ret = mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned(file, addr, len, phys_addr,
> > > + flags, PUD_SIZE, 0);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (phys_len >= PMD_SIZE) {
> > > + ret = mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned(file, addr, len, phys_addr,
> > > + flags, PMD_SIZE, 0);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> >
> > Hurm, we have contiguous pages now, so PMD_SIZE is not so great, eg on
> > 4k ARM with we can have a 16*2M=32MB contiguity, and 16k ARM uses
> > contiguity to get a 32*16k=1GB option.
> >
> > Forcing to only align to the PMD or PUD seems suboptimal..
>
> Right, however the cont-pte / cont-pmd are still not supported in huge
> pfnmaps in general? It'll definitely be nice if someone could look at that
> from ARM perspective, then provide support of both in one shot.

Maybe leave behind a comment about this. I've been poking around if
somone would do the ARM PFNMAP support but can't report any commitment.

> > > +fallback:
> > > + return mm_get_unmapped_area(current->mm, file, addr, len, pgoff, flags);
> >
> > Why not put this into mm_get_unmapped_area_vmflags() and get rid of
> > thp_get_unmapped_area_vmflags() too?
> >
> > Is there any reason the caller should have to do a retry?
>
> We would still need thp_get_unmapped_area_vmflags() because that encodes
> PMD_SIZE for THPs; we need the flexibility of providing any size alignment
> as a generic helper.

There is only one caller for thp_get_unmapped_area_vmflags(), just
open code PMD_SIZE there and thin this whole thing out. It reads
better like that anyhow:

} else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE) && !file
&& !addr /* no hint */
&& IS_ALIGNED(len, PMD_SIZE)) {
/* Ensures that larger anonymous mappings are THP aligned. */
addr = mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned(file, 0, len, pgoff,
flags, vm_flags, PMD_SIZE);

> That was ok, however that loses some flexibility when the caller wants to
> try with different alignments, exactly like above: currently, it was trying
> to do a first attempt of PUD mapping then fallback to PMD if that fails.

Oh, that's a good point, I didn't notice that subtle bit.

But then maybe that is showing the API is just wrong and the core code
should be trying to find the best alignment not the caller. Like we
can have those PUD/PMD size ifdefs inside the mm instead of in VFIO?

VFIO would just pass the BAR size, implying the best alignment, and
the core implementation will try to get the largest VMA alignment that
snaps to an arch supported page contiguity, testing each of the arches
page size possibilities in turn.

That sounds like a much better API than pushing this into drivers??

Jason