Re: [PATCH 11/13] huge_memory: Remove dead vmf_insert_pXd code

[Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:07:31PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> 
> Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com> writes:
> 
> > Hi, Alistair,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:54:26AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> >> Now that DAX is managing page reference counts the same as normal
> >> pages there are no callers for vmf_insert_pXd functions so remove
> >> them.
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
> >> ---
> >>  include/linux/huge_mm.h |   2 +-
> >>  mm/huge_memory.c        | 165 +-----------------------------------------
> >>  2 files changed, 167 deletions(-)
> >> 
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> >> index 9207d8e..0fb6bff 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> >> @@ -37,8 +37,6 @@ int change_huge_pmd(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >>  		    pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, pgprot_t newprot,
> >>  		    unsigned long cp_flags);
> >>  
> >> -vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write);
> >> -vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write);
> >>  vm_fault_t dax_insert_pfn_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write);
> >>  vm_fault_t dax_insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write);
> >
> > There's a plan to support huge pfnmaps in VFIO, which may still make good
> > use of these functions.  I think it's fine to remove them but it may mean
> > we'll need to add them back when supporting pfnmaps with no memmap.
> 
> I'm ok with that. If we need them back in future it shouldn't be too
> hard to add them back again. I just couldn't find any callers of them
> once DAX stopped using them and the usual policy is to remove unused
> functions.

True.  Currently the pmd/pud helpers are only used in dax.

> 
> > Is it still possible to make the old API generic to both service the new
> > dax refcount plan, but at the meantime working for pfn injections when
> > there's no page struct?
> 
> I don't think so - this new dax refcount plan relies on having a struct
> page to take references on so I don't think it makes much sense to
> combine it with something that doesn't have a struct page. It sounds
> like the situation is the analogue of vm_insert_page()
> vs. vmf_insert_pfn() - it's possible for both to exist but there's not
> really anything that can be shared between the two APIs as one has a
> page and the other is just a raw PFN.

I still think most of the codes should be shared on e.g. most of sanity
checks, pgtable injections, pgtable deposits (for pmd) and so on.

To be explicit, I wonder whether something like below diff would be
applicable on top of the patch "huge_memory: Allow mappings of PMD sized
pages" in this series, which introduced dax_insert_pfn_pmd() for dax:

$ diff origin new
1c1
< vm_fault_t dax_insert_pfn_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
---
> vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
55,58c55,60
<       folio = page_folio(page);
<       folio_get(folio);
<       folio_add_file_rmap_pmd(folio, page, vma);
<       add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio), HPAGE_PMD_NR);
---
>         if (page) {
>                 folio = page_folio(page);
>                 folio_get(folio);
>                 folio_add_file_rmap_pmd(folio, page, vma);
>                 add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio), HPAGE_PMD_NR);
>         }

As most of the rest look very similar to what pfn injections would need..
and in the PoC of ours we're using vmf_insert_pfn_pmd/pud().

That also reminds me on whether it'll be easier to implement the new dax
support for page struct on top of vmf_insert_pfn_pmd/pud, rather than
removing the 1st then adding the new one.  Maybe it'll reduce code churns,
and would that also make reviews easier?

It's also possible I missed something important so the old function must be
removed.

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu