lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Apr]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/4] mm/hugeltb: simplify the return code of __vma_reservation_common()
From
Date
On 2021/4/8 5:23, Mike Kravetz wrote:
> On 4/6/21 8:09 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>> On 2021/4/7 10:37, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>> On 4/6/21 7:05 PM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>> Hi:
>>>> On 2021/4/7 8:53, Mike Kravetz wrote:
>>>>> On 4/2/21 2:32 AM, Miaohe Lin wrote:
>>>>>> It's guaranteed that the vma is associated with a resv_map, i.e. either
>>>>>> VM_MAYSHARE or HPAGE_RESV_OWNER, when the code reaches here or we would
>>>>>> have returned via !resv check above. So ret must be less than 0 in the
>>>>>> 'else' case. Simplify the return code to make this clear.
>>>>>
>>>>> I believe we still neeed that ternary operator in the return statement.
>>>>> Why?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are two basic types of mappings to be concerned with:
>>>>> shared and private.
>>>>> For private mappings, a task can 'own' the mapping as indicated by
>>>>> HPAGE_RESV_OWNER. Or, it may not own the mapping. The most common way
>>>>> to create a non-owner private mapping is to have a task with a private
>>>>> mapping fork. The parent process will have HPAGE_RESV_OWNER set, the
>>>>> child process will not. The idea is that since the child has a COW copy
>>>>> of the mapping it should not consume reservations made by the parent.
>>>>
>>>> The child process will not have HPAGE_RESV_OWNER set because at fork time, we do:
>>>> /*
>>>> * Clear hugetlb-related page reserves for children. This only
>>>> * affects MAP_PRIVATE mappings. Faults generated by the child
>>>> * are not guaranteed to succeed, even if read-only
>>>> */
>>>> if (is_vm_hugetlb_page(tmp))
>>>> reset_vma_resv_huge_pages(tmp);
>>>> i.e. we have vma->vm_private_data = (void *)0; for child process and vma_resv_map() will
>>>> return NULL in this case.
>>>> Or am I missed something?
>>>>
>>>>> Only the parent (HPAGE_RESV_OWNER) is allowed to consume the
>>>>> reservations.
>>>>> Hope that makens sense?
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Miaohe Lin <linmiaohe@huawei.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> mm/hugetlb.c | 2 +-
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/mm/hugetlb.c b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>>>> index a03a50b7c410..b7864abded3d 100644
>>>>>> --- a/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>>>> +++ b/mm/hugetlb.c
>>>>>> @@ -2183,7 +2183,7 @@ static long __vma_reservation_common(struct hstate *h,
>>>>>> return 1;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> else
>>>>>
>>>>> This else also handles the case !HPAGE_RESV_OWNER. In this case, we
>>>>
>>>> IMO, for the case !HPAGE_RESV_OWNER, we won't reach here. What do you think?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think you are correct.
>>>
>>> However, if this is true we should be able to simply the code even
>>> further. There is no need to check for HPAGE_RESV_OWNER because we know
>>> it must be set. Correct? If so, the code could look something like:
>>>
>>> if (vma->vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE)
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>> /* We know private mapping with HPAGE_RESV_OWNER */
>>> * ... *
>>> * Add that existing comment */
>>>
>>> if (ret > 0)
>>> return 0;
>>> if (ret == 0)
>>> return 1;
>>> return ret;
>>>
>>
>> Many thanks for good suggestion! What do you mean is this ?
>
> I think the below changes would work fine.
>
> However, this patch/discussion has made me ask the question. Do we need
> the HPAGE_RESV_OWNER flag? Is the followng true?
> !(vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) && vma_resv_map() ===> HPAGE_RESV_OWNER
> !(vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) && !vma_resv_map() ===> !HPAGE_RESV_OWNER
>

I agree with you.

HPAGE_RESV_OWNER is set in hugetlb_reserve_pages() and there's no way to clear it
in the owner process. The child process can not inherit both HPAGE_RESV_OWNER and
resv_map. So for !HPAGE_RESV_OWNER vma, it knows nothing about resv_map.

IMO, in !(vm_flags & VM_MAYSHARE) case, we must have:
!!vma_resv_map() == !!HPAGE_RESV_OWNER

> I am not suggesting we eliminate the flag and make corresponding
> changes. Just curious if you believe we 'could' remove the flag and
> depend on the above conditions.
>
> One reason for NOT removing the flag is that that flag itself and
> supporting code and commnets help explain what happens with hugetlb
> reserves for COW mappings. That code is hard to understand and the
> existing code and coments around HPAGE_RESV_OWNER help with
> understanding.

Agree. These codes took me several days to understand...

>

Thanks.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-04-08 04:45    [W:0.102 / U:0.020 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site