From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E971BC433F5 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:47:22 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1]:37470 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nZGsD-0006TN-GE for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:47:21 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:43110) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nZGqp-0005cH-Te for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:45:56 -0400 Received: from [2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035] (port=55055 helo=mail-pj1-x1035.google.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1nZGqj-00071I-4r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 14:45:55 -0400 Received: by mail-pj1-x1035.google.com with SMTP id y16so5596093pju.4 for ; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:45:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=o1qcZR1LxJ/8GbkW+1o65vv0lkJ0fy//rk2/1UscmDw=; b=dwjAFyr79FlAvZN4oVDM+cROGwXKgWD+GjzFyXRXAgE8FAWQh0f0I0kd8X5DA7Ic5Y VwRjT+3EqrXkzzX/nA4ayJfSyv2gITG1hZSatG1ilG804HuNYYziRhjIGD8PzrzW2dTC qt0ANVSElJX0JYkgUfFNeD60WWqInSK4r/B5RxaF5Zl5+LoHWKn0N40sfo5Ea2m3RSsS Sxu4L76R4KPju1vfaBBeh6+oYASNnMU2wyIvIHabuxRCp2MOIvLjmk1Z8I5EaQodk5kP ANAl4mN5q+r0q0fvNS/WILwuTETHBqUREYH8mUVFLgxLgkLiIpXMRtvAHqwl/fH3x5YO W5fQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=o1qcZR1LxJ/8GbkW+1o65vv0lkJ0fy//rk2/1UscmDw=; b=5dYaC2u/6K++2oiKIogNrFKZi8Pcmu1IAiYvj51fL4IpJp/Y9tiyBoRGA3rDkiOgJE laPdTl9yGKcmpJn9EWZu6yvFAsNDZAziRZl/8L91FK4ygdjDs/evawefiCZedgK3yaZZ s+LifjXTSz62qUVl0oPq3LtP060yXUS89EWEDZHx+J5xMWVW4Nsxhy5DwBuC0fLaUBJU piGFMvwTHppFHnj0rq2SgIxe4W+e/8R1+zbLzFc2YJYxj5RItUbBkiQjPGt4Wvzd90Se PmNSZh8ocWp5ARKJC+Qa6ECcyE7izvsZc1a6QloDtsP0RHLoeetN+fZI8tF5mMJJWL4Z ifgQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532UbLuWUSxiNqRSCwR2MvIliRDS6eMiKV0jj9BqxhtlzXfKTowk QBy4ztFNDCvICt28WhTQMcEX6A== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyI/2yF5j0Y4c6Rg7cy0zvMkWFf2rvkH3lV+0xBToveJFcYf3GobqOkuMkXZjAqYWlysTz2jw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:d717:b0:156:20a9:d388 with SMTP id w23-20020a170902d71700b0015620a9d388mr7038650ply.19.1648579521129; Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:45:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from google.com (157.214.185.35.bc.googleusercontent.com. [35.185.214.157]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id c5-20020a056a00248500b004f6b5ddcc65sm20916192pfv.199.2022.03.29.11.45.20 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 29 Mar 2022 11:45:20 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2022 18:45:16 +0000 From: Sean Christopherson To: Chao Peng Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-api@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Paolo Bonzini , Jonathan Corbet , Vitaly Kuznetsov , Wanpeng Li , Jim Mattson , Joerg Roedel , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , Borislav Petkov , x86@kernel.org, "H . Peter Anvin" , Hugh Dickins , Jeff Layton , "J . Bruce Fields" , Andrew Morton , Mike Rapoport , Steven Price , "Maciej S . Szmigiero" , Vlastimil Babka , Vishal Annapurve , Yu Zhang , "Kirill A . Shutemov" , luto@kernel.org, jun.nakajima@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com, david@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 02/13] mm: Introduce memfile_notifier Message-ID: References: <20220310140911.50924-1-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com> <20220310140911.50924-3-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220310140911.50924-3-chao.p.peng@linux.intel.com> X-Host-Lookup-Failed: Reverse DNS lookup failed for 2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035 (failed) Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::1035; envelope-from=seanjc@google.com; helo=mail-pj1-x1035.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -161 X-Spam_score: -16.2 X-Spam_bar: ---------------- X-Spam_report: (-16.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, PDS_HP_HELO_NORDNS=0.659, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RDNS_NONE=0.793, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, Chao Peng wrote: > diff --git a/mm/Makefile b/mm/Makefile > index 70d4309c9ce3..f628256dce0d 100644 > +void memfile_notifier_invalidate(struct memfile_notifier_list *list, > + pgoff_t start, pgoff_t end) > +{ > + struct memfile_notifier *notifier; > + int id; > + > + id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu); > + list_for_each_entry_srcu(notifier, &list->head, list, > + srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) { > + if (notifier->ops && notifier->ops->invalidate) Any reason notifier->ops isn't mandatory? > + notifier->ops->invalidate(notifier, start, end); > + } > + srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id); > +} > + > +void memfile_notifier_fallocate(struct memfile_notifier_list *list, > + pgoff_t start, pgoff_t end) > +{ > + struct memfile_notifier *notifier; > + int id; > + > + id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu); > + list_for_each_entry_srcu(notifier, &list->head, list, > + srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) { > + if (notifier->ops && notifier->ops->fallocate) > + notifier->ops->fallocate(notifier, start, end); > + } > + srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id); > +} > + > +void memfile_register_backing_store(struct memfile_backing_store *bs) > +{ > + BUG_ON(!bs || !bs->get_notifier_list); > + > + list_add_tail(&bs->list, &backing_store_list); > +} > + > +void memfile_unregister_backing_store(struct memfile_backing_store *bs) > +{ > + list_del(&bs->list); Allowing unregistration of a backing store is broken. Using the _safe() variant is not sufficient to guard against concurrent modification. I don't see any reason to support this out of the gate, the only reason to support unregistering a backing store is if the backing store is implemented as a module, and AFAIK none of the backing stores we plan on supporting initially support being built as a module. These aren't exported, so it's not like that's even possible. Registration would also be broken if modules are allowed, I'm pretty sure module init doesn't run under a global lock. We can always add this complexity if it's needed in the future, but for now the easiest thing would be to tag memfile_register_backing_store() with __init and make backing_store_list __ro_after_init. > +} > + > +static int memfile_get_notifier_info(struct inode *inode, > + struct memfile_notifier_list **list, > + struct memfile_pfn_ops **ops) > +{ > + struct memfile_backing_store *bs, *iter; > + struct memfile_notifier_list *tmp; > + > + list_for_each_entry_safe(bs, iter, &backing_store_list, list) { > + tmp = bs->get_notifier_list(inode); > + if (tmp) { > + *list = tmp; > + if (ops) > + *ops = &bs->pfn_ops; > + return 0; > + } > + } > + return -EOPNOTSUPP; > +} > + > +int memfile_register_notifier(struct inode *inode, Taking an inode is a bit odd from a user perspective. Any reason not to take a "struct file *" and get the inode here? That would give callers a hint that they need to hold a reference to the file for the lifetime of the registration. > + struct memfile_notifier *notifier, > + struct memfile_pfn_ops **pfn_ops) > +{ > + struct memfile_notifier_list *list; > + int ret; > + > + if (!inode || !notifier | !pfn_ops) Bitwise | instead of logical ||. But IMO taking in a pfn_ops pointer is silly. More below. > + return -EINVAL; > + > + ret = memfile_get_notifier_info(inode, &list, pfn_ops); > + if (ret) > + return ret; > + > + spin_lock(&list->lock); > + list_add_rcu(¬ifier->list, &list->head); > + spin_unlock(&list->lock); > + > + return 0; > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memfile_register_notifier); > + > +void memfile_unregister_notifier(struct inode *inode, > + struct memfile_notifier *notifier) > +{ > + struct memfile_notifier_list *list; > + > + if (!inode || !notifier) > + return; > + > + BUG_ON(memfile_get_notifier_info(inode, &list, NULL)); Eww. Rather than force the caller to provide the inode/file and the notifier, what about grabbing the backing store itself in the notifier? struct memfile_notifier { struct list_head list; struct memfile_notifier_ops *ops; struct memfile_backing_store *bs; }; That also helps avoid confusing between "ops" and "pfn_ops". IMO, exposing memfile_backing_store to the caller isn't a big deal, and is preferable to having to rewalk multiple lists just to delete a notifier. Then this can become: void memfile_unregister_notifier(struct memfile_notifier *notifier) { spin_lock(¬ifier->bs->list->lock); list_del_rcu(¬ifier->list); spin_unlock(¬ifier->bs->list->lock); synchronize_srcu(&srcu); } and registration can be: int memfile_register_notifier(const struct file *file, struct memfile_notifier *notifier) { struct memfile_notifier_list *list; struct memfile_backing_store *bs; int ret; if (!file || !notifier) return -EINVAL; list_for_each_entry(bs, &backing_store_list, list) { list = bs->get_notifier_list(file_inode(file)); if (list) { notifier->bs = bs; spin_lock(&list->lock); list_add_rcu(¬ifier->list, &list->head); spin_unlock(&list->lock); return 0; } } return -EOPNOTSUPP; }