Re: [RFC PATCH 1/4] mm: use current as mmu notifier's owner

["Mika Penttilä" <mpenttil@redhat.com>]

On 8/14/25 16:04, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 03:53:00PM +0300, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>> On 8/14/25 15:40, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:19:26AM +0300, Mika Penttilä wrote:
>>>> When doing migration in combination with device fault handling,
>>>> detect the case in the interval notifier.
>>>>
>>>> Without that, we would livelock with our own invalidations
>>>> while migrating and splitting pages during fault handling.
>>>>
>>>> Note, pgmap_owner, used in some other code paths as owner for filtering,
>>>> is not readily available for split path, so use current for this use case.
>>>> Also, current and pgmap_owner, both being pointers to memory, can not be
>>>> mis-interpreted to each other.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>
>>>> Cc: Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>
>>>> Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@nvidia.com>
>>>> Cc: Balbir Singh <balbirs@nvidia.com>
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mika Penttilä <mpenttil@redhat.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>  lib/test_hmm.c   | 5 +++++
>>>>  mm/huge_memory.c | 6 +++---
>>>>  mm/rmap.c        | 4 ++--
>>>>  3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/lib/test_hmm.c b/lib/test_hmm.c
>>>> index 761725bc713c..cd5c139213be 100644
>>>> --- a/lib/test_hmm.c
>>>> +++ b/lib/test_hmm.c
>>>> @@ -269,6 +269,11 @@ static bool dmirror_interval_invalidate(struct mmu_interval_notifier *mni,
>>>>  	    range->owner == dmirror->mdevice)
>>>>  		return true;
>>>>  
>>>> +	if (range->event == MMU_NOTIFY_CLEAR &&
>>>> +	    range->owner == current) {
>>>> +		return true;
>>>> +	}
>>> I don't understand this, there is nothing in hmm that says only
>>> current can call hmm_range_fault, and indeed most applications won't
>>> even gurantee that.
>> No it's the opposite, if we are ourselves the invalidator, don't care.
> I think you've missed the point, you cannot use range->owner in any
> way to tell "we are ourselves the invalidator". It is simply not the
> meaning of range->owner.

Usually it is the device but used similarly, look for instance nouveau:


static bool nouveau_svm_range_invalidate(struct mmu_interval_notifier *mni,
                                         const struct mmu_notifier_range *range,
                                         unsigned long cur_seq)
{
        struct svm_notifier *sn =
                container_of(mni, struct svm_notifier, notifier);

        if (range->event == MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE &&
            range->owner == sn->svmm->vmm->cli->drm->dev)
                return true;

Where we return in case are the initiator of the make_device_exclusive. Otherwise,
it would also hang in next mmu_interval_read_begin().

owner is void * and admit used in a creative way here, but it can't be wrongly interpreted
as dev if current.

>
>>> So if this plan relies on something like the above in drivers I don't
>>> see how it can work.
>>>
>>> If this is just some hack for tests, try instead to find a solution
>>> that more accurately matches what a real driver should do.
>>>
>>> But this also seems overall troublesome to your goal, if you do a
>>> migrate inside hmm_range_fault() it will generate an invalidation call
>>> back and that will increment the seqlock and we will loop
>>> hmm_range_fault() again which rewalks.
>> That's the problem this solves.
>> The semantics is "if we are the invalidator don't wait for invalidate end",
>> aka don't mmu_interval_set_seq() that would make hang in the next mmu_interval_read_begin(),
>> waiting the invalidate to end
> I doubt we can skip mmu_interval_set_seq(), doing so can corrupt concurrent
> hmm_range_fault in some other thread.
>
> Nor, as I said, can we actually skip the invalidation toward HW
> anyhow.
>
> At the very least this commit message fails to explain the new locking
> proposal, or justify why it can work.

Yes the commit message could be better. 
But this is essentially the same as nouveau is doing with 
MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE handling, just not using the dev as the qualifier,
because that is not easily available in the context.

--Mika

> Jason
>