Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions

["Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 01:01:01PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/19/19 7:06 AM, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:47:24AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >> On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 03:04:17PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:36:33PM -0800, john.hubbard@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >>>> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> >>>> index f84e22685aaa..37085b8163b1 100644
> >>>> --- a/mm/gup.c
> >>>> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> >>>> @@ -28,6 +28,88 @@ struct follow_page_context {
> >>>>  	unsigned int page_mask;
> >>>>  };
> >>>>  
> >>>> +typedef int (*set_dirty_func_t)(struct page *page);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static void __put_user_pages_dirty(struct page **pages,
> >>>> +				   unsigned long npages,
> >>>> +				   set_dirty_func_t sdf)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	unsigned long index;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) {
> >>>> +		struct page *page = compound_head(pages[index]);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +		if (!PageDirty(page))
> >>>> +			sdf(page);
> >>>
> >>> How is this safe? What prevents the page to be cleared under you?
> >>>
> >>> If it's safe to race clear_page_dirty*() it has to be stated explicitly
> >>> with a reason why. It's not very clear to me as it is.
> >>
> >> The PageDirty() optimization above is fine to race with clear the
> >> page flag as it means it is racing after a page_mkclean() and the
> >> GUP user is done with the page so page is about to be write back
> >> ie if (!PageDirty(page)) see the page as dirty and skip the sdf()
> >> call while a split second after TestClearPageDirty() happens then
> >> it means the racing clear is about to write back the page so all
> >> is fine (the page was dirty and it is being clear for write back).
> >>
> >> If it does call the sdf() while racing with write back then we
> >> just redirtied the page just like clear_page_dirty_for_io() would
> >> do if page_mkclean() failed so nothing harmful will come of that
> >> neither. Page stays dirty despite write back it just means that
> >> the page might be write back twice in a row.
> > 
> > Fair enough. Should we get it into a comment here?
> 
> How's this read to you? I reworded and slightly expanded Jerome's 
> description:
> 
> diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> index d1df7b8ba973..86397ae23922 100644
> --- a/mm/gup.c
> +++ b/mm/gup.c
> @@ -61,6 +61,24 @@ static void __put_user_pages_dirty(struct page **pages,
>         for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) {
>                 struct page *page = compound_head(pages[index]);
>  
> +               /*
> +                * Checking PageDirty at this point may race with
> +                * clear_page_dirty_for_io(), but that's OK. Two key cases:
> +                *
> +                * 1) This code sees the page as already dirty, so it skips
> +                * the call to sdf(). That could happen because
> +                * clear_page_dirty_for_io() called page_mkclean(),
> +                * followed by set_page_dirty(). However, now the page is
> +                * going to get written back, which meets the original
> +                * intention of setting it dirty, so all is well:
> +                * clear_page_dirty_for_io() goes on to call
> +                * TestClearPageDirty(), and write the page back.
> +                *
> +                * 2) This code sees the page as clean, so it calls sdf().
> +                * The page stays dirty, despite being written back, so it
> +                * gets written back again in the next writeback cycle.
> +                * This is harmless.
> +                */
>                 if (!PageDirty(page))
>                         sdf(page);

Looks good to me.

Other nit: effectively the same type of callback called 'spd' in
set_page_dirty(). Should we rename 'sdf' to 'sdp' here too?

> >>>> +void put_user_pages(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +	unsigned long index;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +	for (index = 0; index < npages; index++)
> >>>> +		put_user_page(pages[index]);
> >>>
> >>> I believe there's an room for improvement for compound pages.
> >>>
> >>> If there's multiple consequential pages in the array that belong to the
> >>> same compound page we can get away with a single atomic operation to
> >>> handle them all.
> >>
> >> Yes maybe just add a comment with that for now and leave this kind of
> >> optimization to latter ?
> > 
> > Sounds good to me.
> > 
> 
> Here's a comment for that:
> 
> @@ -127,6 +145,11 @@ void put_user_pages(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages)
>  {
>         unsigned long index;
>  
> +       /*
> +        * TODO: this can be optimized for huge pages: if a series of pages is
> +        * physically contiguous and part of the same compound page, then a

Comound pages are always physically contiguous. I initially ment that the
optimization makes sense if they are next to each other in 'pages' array.

> +        * single operation to the head page should suffice.
> +        */
>         for (index = 0; index < npages; index++)
>                 put_user_page(pages[index]);
>  }
> 
> 
> thanks,
> -- 
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA

-- 
 Kirill A. Shutemov