Re: [PATCH v4 13/13] mm/gup: Handle hugetlb in the generic follow_page_mask code

David Hildenbrand
2024-04-02T16:40:31Z

On 02.04.24 18:00, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 05:26:28PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> The oops trigger is at mm/gup.c:778:
>>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageHead(page) && !is_zone_device_page(page), page);
>>>
>>> So 2M passed ok, and its failing for 32M, which is cont-pmd. I'm guessing you're trying to iterate 2M into a cont-pmd folio and ending up with an unexpected tail page?
>>
>> I assume we find the expected tail page, it's just that the check
>>
>> VM_BUG_ON_PAGE(!PageHead(page) && !is_zone_device_page(page), page);
>>
>> Doesn't make sense with hugetlb folios. We might have a tail page mapped in
>> a cont-pmd entry. As soon as we call follow_huge_pmd() on "not the first
>> cont-pmd entry", we trigger this check.
>>
>> Likely this sanity check must also allow for hugetlb folios. Or we should
>> just remove it completely.
>>
>> In the past, we wanted to make sure that we never get tail pages of THP from
>> PMD entries, because something would currently be broken (we don't support
>> THP > PMD).
>
> That was a practical limitation on my part. We have various parts of
> the MM which assume that pmd_page() returns a head page and until we
> get all of those fixed, adding support for folios larger than PMD_SIZE
> was only going to cause trouble for no significant wins.
>
> I agree with you we should get rid of this assertion entirely. We should
> fix all the places which assume that pmd_page() returns a head page,
> but that may take some time.
>
> As an example, filemap_map_pmd() has:
>
> if (pmd_none(*vmf->pmd) && folio_test_pmd_mappable(folio)) {
> struct page *page = folio_file_page(folio, start);
> vm_fault_t ret = do_set_pmd(vmf, page);
>
> and then do_set_pmd() has:
>
> if (page != &folio->page || folio_order(folio) != HPAGE_PMD_ORDER)
> return ret;
>
> so we'd simply refuse to use a PMD to map a folio larger than PMD_SIZE.
> There's a lot of work to be done to make this work generally (not to
> mention figuring out how to handle mapcount for such folios ;-).

Yes :)

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb