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 vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26E44CCA47B for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 13:53:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S235749AbiF3Nxb (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2022 09:53:31 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:50110 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S235798AbiF3Nwa (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2022 09:52:30 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.133.124]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B953B3057B for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:49:40 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1656596979; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=kAIsAO8/q3xt7t8QmRZnKGg22p7TRVULhh/Oocusryo=; b=YfnsrSjAeJ44q5QhuCTU0dHtE3oLjGNW229Tn53xxhrJ53uOT1P9AyjVK3c2vT1SNrgfFO ohyDG2Rj4b5Ur8sk9jM0VlQ1mV0ljuTQYS0sY92dWmog6Srb1jiY5x5GYuOEqHh91pX2k6 CoVU3LoLWZHzIWWNHaMbPYUlAFMyU6k= Received: from mail-io1-f69.google.com (mail-io1-f69.google.com [209.85.166.69]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-186-Jho_qfvQP9WlXjkJzwR0-Q-1; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 09:49:37 -0400 X-MC-Unique: Jho_qfvQP9WlXjkJzwR0-Q-1 Received: by mail-io1-f69.google.com with SMTP id o6-20020a5eda46000000b00674f9e7e8b4so10185570iop.1 for ; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:49:37 -0700 (PDT) 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=kAIsAO8/q3xt7t8QmRZnKGg22p7TRVULhh/Oocusryo=; b=PsvIwv6yl2YAkW3tfpE9Cqy69eapg/s1yToSeioXkUjQXAF78rP4ja5lp9Rqq+JLzq RCUQCDRgnvRJ9SXIGWrcScWudPD8uPGmJuHgJU0Nd1/uAHeP4hziumD1R+ODOQTIQ/zL qj6BlrFLKWQiXLSbAwD/P9CGVhlerYuVcYsVMLkdN0prHp6gmt9eiV0qmO67922XAs17 evuQRjz2wsLmWXeGvbPQZciWhgQyJIkyqwFSROAQlf2HHNmdBGlfGJ0FFZS+Qdcuzk03 U8YHg/NBVI3npBrKq9Ld/od0ny2ZbbygxBA+ZrX4rsfsdXa+Lk7bLxPB8UsqXwN9Z2Pp p1VQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AJIora9PqJT53FloTiS0pOFgG96FFPZrncdVYurFKGM38GAQA0oDxn/c DBJxON5bjzVv7x6VQbvFIMd/B3xLzt7i0WGn+B2j3mf/Li0brVcLAVEz8TvNqLWKiFvdE/veTEl ajG2QHE6wspmqkwYlUEaAksFs X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:264d:b0:33c:ba2d:72e6 with SMTP id n13-20020a056638264d00b0033cba2d72e6mr5277443jat.173.1656596976986; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGRyM1tD4itwXAHEpqybOS05iyJ+cl7zul4Mwu95L2o5RF+XJkhqbNNhgR6ApJoHe/080Tk2rhwsPw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6638:264d:b0:33c:ba2d:72e6 with SMTP id n13-20020a056638264d00b0033cba2d72e6mr5277419jat.173.1656596976660; Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xz-m1.local (cpec09435e3e0ee-cmc09435e3e0ec.cpe.net.cable.rogers.com. [99.241.198.116]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g18-20020a05663810f200b00339d5108b60sm8680220jae.17.2022.06.30.06.49.35 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 30 Jun 2022 06:49:36 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2022 09:49:34 -0400 From: Peter Xu To: John Hubbard Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini , Andrew Morton , David Hildenbrand , "Dr . David Alan Gilbert" , Andrea Arcangeli , Linux MM Mailing List , Sean Christopherson Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] mm/gup: Add FOLL_INTERRUPTIBLE Message-ID: References: <20220622213656.81546-1-peterx@redhat.com> <20220622213656.81546-2-peterx@redhat.com> <16c181d3-09ef-ace4-c910-0a13fc245e48@nvidia.com> <177284f9-416d-c142-a826-e9a497751fca@nvidia.com> <17f9eae0-01bb-4793-201e-16ee267c07f2@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17f9eae0-01bb-4793-201e-16ee267c07f2@nvidia.com> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 06:53:30PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 6/29/22 08:47, Peter Xu wrote: > > > It looks like part of this comment is trying to document a pre-existing > > > concept, which is that faultin_page() only ever sets FAULT_FLAG_KILLABLE > > > if locked != NULL. > > > > I'd say that's not what I wanted to comment.. I wanted to express that > > INTERRUPTIBLE should rely on KILLABLE, that's also why I put the comment to > > be after KILLABLE, not before. IMHO it makes sense already to have > > "interruptible" only if "killable", no matter what's the pre-requisite for > > KILLABLE (in this case it's having "locked" being non-null). > > > > OK, I think I finally understand both the intention of the comment, > and (thanks to your notes, below) the interaction between *locked and > _RETRY, _KILLABLE, and _INTERRUPTIBLE. Really appreciate your leading > me by the nose through that. The pre-existing code is abusing *locked > a bit, by treating it as a flag when really it is a side effect of > flags, but at least now that's clear to me. I agree, alternatively we could have some other FOLL_ flags to represent "locked != NULL" and do sanity check to make sure when the flag is there locked is always set correctly. Current code is a more "dense" way to do this, even though it could be slightly harder to follow. > > Anyway...this leads to finally getting into the comment, which I now > think is not quite what we want: there is no need for a hierarchy of > "_INTERRUPTIBLE should depend upon _KILLABLE". That is: even though an > application allows a fatal signal to get through, it's not clear to me > that that implies that non-fatal signal handling should be prevented. > > The code is only vaguely enforcing such a thing, because it just so > happens that both cases require the same basic prerequisites. So the > code looks good, but I don't see a need to claim a hierarchy in the > comments. > > So I'd either delete the comment entirely, or go with something that is > doesn't try to talk about hierarchy nor locked/retry either. Does this > look reasonable to you: > > > /* > * FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE is opt-in: kernel callers must set > * FOLL_INTERRUPTIBLE. That's because some callers may not be > * prepared to handle early exits caused by non-fatal signals. > */ > > ? Looks good to me, I'd tune a bit to make it less ambiguous on a few places: /* * FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE is opt-in. GUP callers must set * FOLL_INTERRUPTIBLE to enable FAULT_FLAG_INTERRUPTIBLE. * That's because some callers may not be prepared to * handle early exits caused by non-fatal signals. */ Would that be okay to you? > > > > The problem I am (personally) having is that I don't yet understand why > > > or how those are connected: what is it about having locked non-NULL that > > > means the process is killable? (Can you explain why that is?) > > > > Firstly RETRY_KILLABLE relies on ALLOW_RETRY, because if we don't allow > > retry at all it means we'll never wait in handle_mm_fault() anyway, then no > > need to worry on being interrupted by any kind of signal (fatal or not). > > > > Then if we allow retry, we need some way to know "whether mmap_sem is > > released or not" during the process for the caller (because the caller > > cannot see VM_FAULT_RETRY). That's why we added "locked" parameter, so > > that we can set *locked=false to tell the caller we have released mmap_sem. > > > > I think that's why we have "locked" defined as "we allow this page fault > > request to retry and wait, during wait we can always allow fatal signals". > > I think that's defined throughout the gup call interfaces too, and > > faultin_page() is the last step to talk to handle_mm_fault(). > > > > To make this whole picture complete, NOWAIT is another thing that relies on > > ALLOW_RETRY but just to tell "oh please never release the mmap_sem at all". > > For example, when we want to make sure no vma will be released after > > faultin_page() returned. > > > > Again, thanks for taking the time to explain that for me. :) My thanks for reviewing! > > > > > > > If that were clear, I think I could suggest a good comment wording. > > > > IMHO it's a little bit weird to explain "locked" here, especially after > > KILLABLE is set, that's why I didn't try to mention "locked" in my 2nd > > attempt. There are some comments for "locked" above the definition of > > faultin_page(), I think that'll be a nicer place to enrich explanations for > > "locked", and it seems even more suitable as a separate patch? > > > > Totally agreed. I didn't intend to ask for that kind of documentation > here. > > For that, I'm thinking a combination of cleaning up *locked a little > bit, plus maybe some higher level notes like what you wrote above, added > to either pin_user_pages.rst or a new get_user_pages.rst or some .rst > anyway. Definitely a separately thing. Sounds good. Thanks, -- Peter Xu