lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 07/36] HMM: add per mirror page table v3.


On Thu, 21 May 2015, j.glisse@gmail.com wrote:

> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>
> [...]
>
> + /* update() - update device mmu following an event.
> + *
> + * @mirror: The mirror that link process address space with the device.
> + * @event: The event that triggered the update.
> + * Returns: 0 on success or error code {-EIO, -ENOMEM}.
> + *
> + * Called to update device page table for a range of address.
> + * The event type provide the nature of the update :
> + * - Range is no longer valid (munmap).
> + * - Range protection changes (mprotect, COW, ...).
> + * - Range is unmapped (swap, reclaim, page migration, ...).
> + * - Device page fault.
> + * - ...
> + *
> + * Thought most device driver only need to use pte_mask as it reflects
> + * change that will happen to the HMM page table ie :
> + * new_pte = old_pte & event->pte_mask;

Documentation request: It would be useful to break down exactly what is
required from the driver for each event type here, and what extra
information is provided by the type that isn't provided by the pte_mask.

> + *
> + * Device driver must not update the HMM mirror page table (except the
> + * dirty bit see below). Core HMM will update HMM page table after the
> + * update is done.
> + *
> + * Note that device must be cache coherent with system memory (snooping
> + * in case of PCIE devices) so there should be no need for device to
> + * flush anything.
> + *
> + * When write protection is turned on device driver must make sure the
> + * hardware will no longer be able to write to the page otherwise file
> + * system corruption may occur.
> + *
> + * Device must properly set the dirty bit using hmm_pte_set_bit() on
> + * each page entry for memory that was written by the device. If device
> + * can not properly account for write access then the dirty bit must be
> + * set unconditionaly so that proper write back of file backed page can
> + * happen.
> + *
> + * Device driver must not fail lightly, any failure result in device
> + * process being kill.
> + *
> + * Return 0 on success, error value otherwise :
> + * -ENOMEM Not enough memory for performing the operation.
> + * -EIO Some input/output error with the device.
> + *
> + * All other return value trigger warning and are transformed to -EIO.
> + */
> + int (*update)(struct hmm_mirror *mirror,const struct hmm_event *event);
> };
>
>
> @@ -142,6 +223,7 @@ int hmm_device_unregister(struct hmm_device *device);
> * @kref: Reference counter (private to HMM do not use).
> * @dlist: List of all hmm_mirror for same device.
> * @mlist: List of all hmm_mirror for same process.
> + * @pt: Mirror page table.
> *
> * Each device that want to mirror an address space must register one of this
> * struct for each of the address space it wants to mirror. Same device can
> @@ -154,6 +236,7 @@ struct hmm_mirror {
> struct kref kref;
> struct list_head dlist;
> struct hlist_node mlist;
> + struct hmm_pt pt;

Documentation request: Why does each mirror have its own separate set of
page tables rather than the hmm keeping one set for all devices? This is
so different devices can have different permissions for the same address
range, correct?

> };
>
> [...]
> +
> +static inline int hmm_event_init(struct hmm_event *event,
> + struct hmm *hmm,
> + unsigned long start,
> + unsigned long end,
> + enum hmm_etype etype)
> +{
> + event->start = start & PAGE_MASK;
> + event->end = min(end, hmm->vm_end);

start is rounded down to a page boundary. Should end be rounded also?


> [...]
> +
> +static void hmm_mirror_update_pt(struct hmm_mirror *mirror,
> + struct hmm_event *event)
> +{
> + unsigned long addr;
> + struct hmm_pt_iter iter;
> +
> + hmm_pt_iter_init(&iter);
> + for (addr = event->start; addr != event->end;) {
> + unsigned long end, next;
> + dma_addr_t *hmm_pte;
> +
> + hmm_pte = hmm_pt_iter_update(&iter, &mirror->pt, addr);
> + if (!hmm_pte) {
> + addr = hmm_pt_iter_next(&iter, &mirror->pt,
> + addr, event->end);
> + continue;
> + }
> + end = hmm_pt_level_next(&mirror->pt, addr, event->end,
> + mirror->pt.llevel - 1);
> + /*
> + * The directory lock protect against concurrent clearing of
> + * page table bit flags. Exceptions being the dirty bit and
> + * the device driver private flags.
> + */
> + hmm_pt_iter_directory_lock(&iter, &mirror->pt);
> + do {
> + next = hmm_pt_level_next(&mirror->pt, addr, end,
> + mirror->pt.llevel);
> + if (!hmm_pte_test_valid_pfn(hmm_pte))
> + continue;
> + if (hmm_pte_test_and_clear_dirty(hmm_pte) &&
> + hmm_pte_test_write(hmm_pte)) {

If the pte is dirty, why bother checking that it's writable?

Could there be a legitimate case in which the page was dirtied in the
past, but was made read-only later for some reason? In that case the page
would still need to be be dirtied correctly even though the hmm_pte isn't
currently writable.

Or is this check trying to protect against a driver setting the dirty bit
without the write bit being set? If that happens, that's a driver bug,
right?

> + struct page *page;
> +
> + page = pfn_to_page(hmm_pte_pfn(*hmm_pte));
> + set_page_dirty(page);
> + }
> + *hmm_pte &= event->pte_mask;
> + if (hmm_pte_test_valid_pfn(hmm_pte))
> + continue;
> + hmm_pt_iter_directory_unref(&iter, mirror->pt.llevel);
> + } while (addr = next, hmm_pte++, addr != end);
> + hmm_pt_iter_directory_unlock(&iter, &mirror->pt);
> + }
> + hmm_pt_iter_fini(&iter, &mirror->pt);
> +}
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-26 01:41    [W:0.245 / U:11.224 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site