Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions

[Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>]

On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 1:56 PM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> On 12/4/18 12:28 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:17 PM <john.hubbard@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> >>
> >> Introduces put_user_page(), which simply calls put_page().
> >> This provides a way to update all get_user_pages*() callers,
> >> so that they call put_user_page(), instead of put_page().
> >>
> >> Also introduces put_user_pages(), and a few dirty/locked variations,
> >> as a replacement for release_pages(), and also as a replacement
> >> for open-coded loops that release multiple pages.
> >> These may be used for subsequent performance improvements,
> >> via batching of pages to be released.
> >>
> >> This is the first step of fixing the problem described in [1]. The steps
> >> are:
> >>
> >> 1) (This patch): provide put_user_page*() routines, intended to be used
> >>    for releasing pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*().
> >>
> >> 2) Convert all of the call sites for get_user_pages*(), to
> >>    invoke put_user_page*(), instead of put_page(). This involves dozens of
> >>    call sites, and will take some time.
> >>
> >> 3) After (2) is complete, use get_user_pages*() and put_user_page*() to
> >>    implement tracking of these pages. This tracking will be separate from
> >>    the existing struct page refcounting.
> >>
> >> 4) Use the tracking and identification of these pages, to implement
> >>    special handling (especially in writeback paths) when the pages are
> >>    backed by a filesystem. Again, [1] provides details as to why that is
> >>    desirable.
> >
> > I thought at Plumbers we talked about using a page bit to tag pages
> > that have had their reference count elevated by get_user_pages()? That
> > way there is no need to distinguish put_page() from put_user_page() it
> > just happens internally to put_page(). At the conference Matthew was
> > offering to free up a page bit for this purpose.
> >
>
> ...but then, upon further discussion in that same session, we realized that
> that doesn't help. You need a reference count. Otherwise a random put_page
> could affect your dma-pinned pages, etc, etc.

Ok, sorry, I mis-remembered. So, you're effectively trying to capture
the end of the page pin event separate from the final 'put' of the
page? Makes sense.

> I was not able to actually find any place where a single additional page
> bit would help our situation, which is why this still uses LRU fields for
> both the two bits required (the RFC [1] still applies), and the dma_pinned_count.

Except the LRU fields are already in use for ZONE_DEVICE pages... how
does this proposal interact with those?

> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20181110085041.10071-7-jhubbard@nvidia.com
>
> >> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/753027/ : "The Trouble with get_user_pages()"
> >>
> >> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> >
> > Wish, you could have been there Jan. I'm missing why it's safe to
> > assume that a single put_user_page() is paired with a get_user_page()?
> >
>
> A put_user_page() per page, or a put_user_pages() for an array of pages. See
> patch 0002 for several examples.

Yes, however I was more concerned about validation and trying to
locate missed places where put_page() is used instead of
put_user_page().

It would be interesting to see if we could have a debug mode where
get_user_pages() returned dynamically allocated pages from a known
address range and catch drivers that operate on a user-pinned page
without using the proper helper to 'put' it. I think we might also
need a ref_user_page() for drivers that may do their own get_page()
and expect the dma_pinned_count to also increase.