From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=WZEt=C7=kvack.org=owner-linux-mm@kernel.org>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on
	aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,
	DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,
	MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1
	autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0
Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99])
	by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DC58C4727D
	for <linux-mm@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:01:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17])
	by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E60EE238A1
	for <linux-mm@archiver.kernel.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:01:17 +0000 (UTC)
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org;
	dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nvidia.com header.i=@nvidia.com header.b="Tde9CBw9"
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org E60EE238A1
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=nvidia.com
Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix)
	id ED1966B0003; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40)
	id EAA256B0055; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042)
	id D98036B005A; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org
Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0120.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.120])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C37966B0003
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 16:01:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from smtpin01.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251])
	by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7ACA2180AD807
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:01:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-FDA: 77291766552.01.mind98_570b75427150
Received: from filter.hostedemail.com (10.5.16.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.16.251])
	by smtpin01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 54BDB1004BA75
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:01:16 +0000 (UTC)
X-HE-Tag: mind98_570b75427150
X-Filterd-Recvd-Size: 4397
Received: from hqnvemgate24.nvidia.com (hqnvemgate24.nvidia.com [216.228.121.143])
	by imf12.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 20:01:15 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from hqmail.nvidia.com (Not Verified[216.228.121.13]) by hqnvemgate24.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, AES256-SHA)
	id <B5f6a57ac0000>; Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:59:40 -0700
Received: from [10.2.52.174] (172.20.13.39) by HQMAIL107.nvidia.com
 (172.20.187.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Tue, 22 Sep
 2020 20:01:14 +0000
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] mm/thp: Split huge pmds/puds if they're pinned when
 fork()
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
CC: Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
	<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Linus Torvalds
	<torvalds@linux-foundation.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, "Kirill
 Shutemov" <kirill@shutemov.name>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>, Oleg Nesterov
	<oleg@redhat.com>, Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>, Hugh Dickins
	<hughd@google.com>, Leon Romanovsky <leonro@nvidia.com>, Christoph Hellwig
	<hch@lst.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Jason Gunthorpe
	<jgg@ziepe.ca>, Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
References: <20200921211744.24758-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20200921212031.25233-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <5e594e71-537f-3e9f-85b6-034b7f5fedbe@nvidia.com>
 <20200922103315.GD15112@quack2.suse.cz>
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Message-ID: <4a65586e-9282-beb0-1880-1ef8da03727c@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2020 13:01:13 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/68.12.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200922103315.GD15112@quack2.suse.cz>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [172.20.13.39]
X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) To
 HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nvidia.com; s=n1;
	t=1600804780; bh=YRzr4MXKIVqdNO7ktu5glQ0JCVg8EzQ8Vf8cqhDwAPQ=;
	h=Subject:To:CC:References:From:Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:
	 MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Language:
	 Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Originating-IP:X-ClientProxiedBy;
	b=Tde9CBw9i4FTYZdoQ+BZOyvSSyyK9tfAUY6tej1s7YdKStE5rjEv2ZbcpO3mWq8og
	 6G4oyPTK3tDtwaUmke4V/h1xPiyKzeoa/sCr9IzKhnUnbv1rUe5hxEnJIqJyRt0Bp5
	 SBHW4exjcXhLgSLey6guHt0tb+QoFNS1zm2ZFcwHz40DAWTeKM7t7XfI4lSQWX02Jv
	 G7S3Tw8swWSWRqSbDjsEYlNsRRevJfQyz+HnfeuHk1Fv98R+mlUQMBq3lJJIgkFToR
	 +OOJ4Tc5lHycHJ7sJpi0Cpt8x8a6LtUm6G97vw9aBuPFBgdE2v9J4JOKaCg67SWI5N
	 lqCJqEZy+wcfQ==
X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>

On 9/22/20 3:33 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 21-09-20 23:41:16, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 9/21/20 2:20 PM, Peter Xu wrote:
>> ...
>>> +	if (unlikely(READ_ONCE(src_mm->has_pinned) &&
>>> +		     page_maybe_dma_pinned(src_page))) {
>>
>> This condition would make a good static inline function. It's used in 3
>> places, and the condition is quite special and worth documenting, and
>> having a separate function helps with that, because the function name
>> adds to the story. I'd suggest approximately:
>>
>>      page_likely_dma_pinned()
>>
>> for the name.
> 
> Well, but we should also capture that this really only works for anonymous
> pages. For file pages mm->has_pinned does not work because the page may be
> still pinned by completely unrelated process as Jann already properly
> pointed out earlier in the thread. So maybe anon_page_likely_pinned()?
> Possibly also assert PageAnon(page) in it if we want to be paranoid...
> 
> 								Honza

The file-backed case doesn't really change anything, though:
page_maybe_dma_pinned() is already a "fuzzy yes" in the same sense: you
can get a false positive. Just like here, with an mm->has_pinned that
could be a false positive for a process.

And for that reason, I'm also not sure an "assert PageAnon(page)" is
desirable. That assertion would prevent file-backed callers from being
able to call a function that provides a fuzzy answer, but I don't see
why you'd want or need to do that. The goal here is to make the fuzzy
answer a little bit more definite, but it's not "broken" just because
the result is still fuzzy, right?

Apologies if I'm missing a huge point here... :)


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA