RE: [RFC v1 1/3] mm/mmu_notifier: Add a new notifier for mapping updates (new pages)

Kasireddy, Vivek
2023-07-24T07:55:19Z

Hi Alistair,

>
>
> "Kasireddy, Vivek" <vivek.kasireddy@intel.com> writes:
>
> > Hi Alistair,
> >
> >>
> >> > diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> > index 64a3239b6407..1f2f0209101a 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
> >> > @@ -6096,8 +6096,12 @@ vm_fault_t hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct
> >> *mm, struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> > * hugetlb_no_page will drop vma lock and hugetlb fault
> >> > * mutex internally, which make us return immediately.
> >> > */
> >> > - return hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, mapping, idx, address,
> >> ptep,
> >> > + ret = hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, mapping, idx, address,
> >> ptep,
> >> > entry, flags);
> >> > + if (!ret)
> >> > + mmu_notifier_update_mapping(vma->vm_mm,
> >> address,
> >> > + pte_pfn(*ptep));
> >>
> >> The next patch ends up calling pfn_to_page() on the result of
> >> pte_pfn(*ptep). I don't think that's safe because couldn't the PTE have
> >> already changed and/or the new page have been freed?
> > Yeah, that might be possible; I believe the right thing to do would be:
> > - return hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, mapping, idx, address, ptep,
> > + ret = hugetlb_no_page(mm, vma, mapping, idx, address, ptep,
> > entry, flags);
> > + if (!ret) {
> > + ptl = huge_pte_lock(h, mm, ptep);
> > + mmu_notifier_update_mapping(vma->vm_mm, address,
> > + pte_pfn(*ptep));
> > + spin_unlock(ptl);
> > + }
>
> Yes, although obviously as I think you point out below you wouldn't be
> able to take any sleeping locks in mmu_notifier_update_mapping().
Yes, I understand that, but I am not sure how we can prevent any potential
notifier callback from taking sleeping locks other than adding clear comments.

>
> > In which case I'd need to make a similar change in the shmem path as well.
> > And, also redo (or eliminate) the locking in udmabuf (patch) which seems a
> > bit excessive on a second look given our use-case (where reads and writes
> do
> > not happen simultaneously due to fence synchronization in the guest
> driver).
>
> I'm not at all familiar with the udmabuf use case but that sounds
> brittle and effectively makes this notifier udmabuf specific right?
Oh, Qemu uses the udmabuf driver to provide Host Graphics components
(such as Spice, Gstreamer, UI, etc) zero-copy access to Guest created
buffers. In other words, from a core mm standpoint, udmabuf just
collects a bunch of pages (associated with buffers) scattered inside
the memfd (Guest ram backed by shmem or hugetlbfs) and wraps
them in a dmabuf fd. And, since we provide zero-copy access, we
use DMA fences to ensure that the components on the Host and
Guest do not access the buffer simultaneously.

>
> The name gives the impression it is more general though. I have
I'd like to make it suitable for general usage.

> contemplated adding a notifier for PTE updates for drivers using
> hmm_range_fault() as it would save some expensive device faults and it
> this could be useful for that.
>
> So if we're adding a notifier for PTE updates I think it would be good
> if it covered all cases and was robust enough to allow mirroring of the
> correct PTE value (ie. by being called under PTL or via some other
> synchronisation like hmm_range_fault()).
Ok; in order to make it clear that the notifier is associated with PTE updates,
I think it needs to have a more suitable name such as mmu_notifier_update_pte()
or mmu_notifier_new_pte(). But we already have mmu_notifier_change_pte,
which IIUC is used mainly for PTE updates triggered by KSM. So, I am inclining
towards dropping this new notifier and instead adding a new flag to change_pte
to distinguish between KSM triggered notifications and others. Something along
the lines of:
diff --git a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
index 218ddc3b4bc7..6afce2287143 100644
--- a/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
+++ b/include/linux/mmu_notifier.h
@@ -129,7 +129,8 @@ struct mmu_notifier_ops {
void (*change_pte)(struct mmu_notifier *subscription,
struct mm_struct *mm,
unsigned long address,
- pte_t pte);
+ pte_t pte,
+ bool ksm_update);
@@ -658,7 +659,7 @@ static inline void mmu_notifier_range_init_owner(
unsigned long ___address = __address; \
pte_t ___pte = __pte; \
\
- mmu_notifier_change_pte(___mm, ___address, ___pte); \
+ mmu_notifier_change_pte(___mm, ___address, ___pte, true); \

And replace mmu_notifier_update_mapping(vma->vm_mm, address, pte_pfn(*ptep))
in the current patch with
mmu_notifier_change_pte(vma->vm_mm, address, ptep, false));

Would that work for your HMM use-case -- assuming we call change_pte after
taking PTL?

Thanks,
Vivek

>
> Thanks.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Vivek
> >
> >>
> >> > + return ret;
> >> >
> >> > ret = 0;
> >> >
> >> > @@ -6223,6 +6227,9 @@ vm_fault_t hugetlb_fault(struct mm_struct
> *mm,
> >> struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> > */
> >> > if (need_wait_lock)
> >> > folio_wait_locked(folio);
> >> > + if (!ret)
> >> > + mmu_notifier_update_mapping(vma->vm_mm, address,
> >> > + pte_pfn(*ptep));
> >> > return ret;
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/mm/mmu_notifier.c b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> >> > index 50c0dde1354f..6421405334b9 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/mmu_notifier.c
> >> > @@ -441,6 +441,23 @@ void __mmu_notifier_change_pte(struct
> >> mm_struct *mm, unsigned long address,
> >> > srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
> >> > }
> >> >
> >> > +void __mmu_notifier_update_mapping(struct mm_struct *mm,
> unsigned
> >> long address,
> >> > + unsigned long pfn)
> >> > +{
> >> > + struct mmu_notifier *subscription;
> >> > + int id;
> >> > +
> >> > + id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
> >> > + hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(subscription,
> >> > + &mm->notifier_subscriptions->list, hlist,
> >> > + srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) {
> >> > + if (subscription->ops->update_mapping)
> >> > + subscription->ops->update_mapping(subscription,
> >> mm,
> >> > + address, pfn);
> >> > + }
> >> > + srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > static int mn_itree_invalidate(struct mmu_notifier_subscriptions
> >> *subscriptions,
> >> > const struct mmu_notifier_range *range)
> >> > {
> >> > diff --git a/mm/shmem.c b/mm/shmem.c
> >> > index 2f2e0e618072..e59eb5fafadb 100644
> >> > --- a/mm/shmem.c
> >> > +++ b/mm/shmem.c
> >> > @@ -77,6 +77,7 @@ static struct vfsmount *shm_mnt;
> >> > #include <linux/fcntl.h>
> >> > #include <uapi/linux/memfd.h>
> >> > #include <linux/rmap.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/mmu_notifier.h>
> >> > #include <linux/uuid.h>
> >> >
> >> > #include <linux/uaccess.h>
> >> > @@ -2164,8 +2165,12 @@ static vm_fault_t shmem_fault(struct
> vm_fault
> >> *vmf)
> >> > gfp, vma, vmf, &ret);
> >> > if (err)
> >> > return vmf_error(err);
> >> > - if (folio)
> >> > + if (folio) {
> >> > vmf->page = folio_file_page(folio, vmf->pgoff);
> >> > + if (ret == VM_FAULT_LOCKED)
> >> > + mmu_notifier_update_mapping(vma->vm_mm, vmf-
> >> >address,
> >> > + page_to_pfn(vmf->page));
> >> > + }
> >> > return ret;
> >> > }