lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Jun]   [26]   [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 Fri, 26 Jun 2015, Jerome Glisse wrote:

> On Thu, Jun 25, 2015 at 04:05:48PM -0700, Mark Hairgrove wrote:
> > 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 + * - Range is no longer valid (munmap).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.
>
> Mostly event tell you if you need to free or not the device page table for
> the range, which is not something you can infer from the pte_mask reliably.
> Difference btw migration and munmap for instance, same pte_mask but range
> is still valid in the migration case it will just be backed by a new set of
> pages.

Given that event->pte_mask and event->type provide redundant information,
are they both necessary?

With or without pte_mask, the below table would be helpful to have in the
comments for the ->update callback:

Event type Driver action
HMM_NONE N/A (driver will never get this)

HMM_FORK Same as HMM_WRITE_PROTECT

HMM_ISDIRTY Same as HMM_WRITE_PROTECT

HMM_MIGRATE Make device PTEs invalid and use hmm_pte_set_dirty or
hmm_mirror_range_dirty if applicable

HMM_MUNMAP Same as HMM_MIGRATE, but the driver may take this as a
hint to free device page tables and other resources
associated with this range

HMM_DEVICE_RFAULT Read hmm_ptes using hmm_pt_iter and write them on the
device

HMM_DEVICE_WFAULT Same as HMM_DEVICE_RFAULT

HMM_WRITE_PROTECT Remove write permission from device PTEs and use
hmm_pte_set_dirty or hmm_mirror_range_dirty if
applicable


>
>
> [...]
> > > @@ -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?
>
> Several reasons, first and mostly dma mapping, while i have plan to allow
> to share dma mapping directory btw devices this require work in the dma
> layer first. Second reasons is, like you point out, different permissions,
> like one device requesting atomic access ie the device will be the only
> one with write permission and HMM need somewhere to store that information
> per device per address. It also helps to avoid calling device driver on a
> range that one device does not mirror.

Sure, that makes sense. Can you put this in the documentation somewhere,
perhaps in the header comments for struct hmm_mirror?

Thanks!
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-06-27 05:21    [W:0.104 / U:22.236 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site