Re: [PATCH v1 2/5] mm/madvise: introduce MADV_POPULATE_(READ|WRITE) to prefault/prealloc memory

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 30.03.21 18:30, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.03.21 18:21, Jann Horn wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 5:01 PM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>>> +long faultin_vma_page_range(struct vm_area_struct *vma, unsigned long start,
>>>>> +                           unsigned long end, bool write, int *locked)
>>>>> +{
>>>>> +       struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
>>>>> +       unsigned long nr_pages = (end - start) / PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>> +       int gup_flags;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       VM_BUG_ON(!PAGE_ALIGNED(start));
>>>>> +       VM_BUG_ON(!PAGE_ALIGNED(end));
>>>>> +       VM_BUG_ON_VMA(start < vma->vm_start, vma);
>>>>> +       VM_BUG_ON_VMA(end > vma->vm_end, vma);
>>>>> +       mmap_assert_locked(mm);
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       /*
>>>>> +        * FOLL_HWPOISON: Return -EHWPOISON instead of -EFAULT when we hit
>>>>> +        *                a poisoned page.
>>>>> +        * FOLL_POPULATE: Always populate memory with VM_LOCKONFAULT.
>>>>> +        * !FOLL_FORCE: Require proper access permissions.
>>>>> +        */
>>>>> +       gup_flags = FOLL_TOUCH | FOLL_POPULATE | FOLL_MLOCK | FOLL_HWPOISON;
>>>>> +       if (write)
>>>>> +               gup_flags |= FOLL_WRITE;
>>>>> +
>>>>> +       /*
>>>>> +        * See check_vma_flags(): Will return -EFAULT on incompatible mappings
>>>>> +        * or with insufficient permissions.
>>>>> +        */
>>>>> +       return __get_user_pages(mm, start, nr_pages, gup_flags,
>>>>> +                               NULL, NULL, locked);
>>>>
>>>> You mentioned in the commit message that you don't want to actually
>>>> dirty all the file pages and force writeback; but doesn't
>>>> POPULATE_WRITE still do exactly that? In follow_page_pte(), if
>>>> FOLL_TOUCH and FOLL_WRITE are set, we mark the page as dirty:
>>>
>>> Well, I mention that POPULATE_READ explicitly doesn't do that. I
>>> primarily set it because populate_vma_page_range() also sets it.
>>>
>>> Is it safe to *not* set it? IOW, fault something writable into a page
>>> table (where the CPU could dirty it without additional page faults)
>>> without marking it accessed? For me, this made logically sense. Thus I
>>> also understood why populate_vma_page_range() set it.
>>
>> FOLL_TOUCH doesn't have anything to do with installing the PTE - it
>> essentially means "the caller of get_user_pages wants to read/write
>> the contents of the returned page, so please do the same things you
>> would do if userspace was accessing the page". So in particular, if
>> you look up a page via get_user_pages() with FOLL_WRITE|FOLL_TOUCH,
>> that tells the MM subsystem "I will be writing into this page directly
>> from the kernel, bypassing the userspace page tables, so please mark
>> it as dirty now so that it will be properly written back later". Part
>> of that is that it marks the page as recently used, which has an
>> effect on LRU pageout behavior, I think - as far as I understand, that
>> is why populate_vma_page_range() uses FOLL_TOUCH.
>>
>> If you look at __get_user_pages(), you can see that it is split up
>> into two major parts: faultin_page() for creating PTEs, and
>> follow_page_mask() for grabbing pages from PTEs. faultin_page()
>> ignores FOLL_TOUCH completely; only follow_page_mask() uses it.
>>
>> In a way I guess maybe you do want the "mark as recently accessed"
>> part that FOLL_TOUCH would give you without FOLL_WRITE? But I think
>> you very much don't want the dirtying that FOLL_TOUCH|FOLL_WRITE leads
>> to. Maybe the ideal approach would be to add a new FOLL flag to say "I
>> only want to mark as recently used, I don't want to dirty". Or maybe
>> it's enough to just leave out the FOLL_TOUCH entirely, I don't know.
> 
> Any thoughts why populate_vma_page_range() does it?

Sorry, I missed the explanation above - thanks!


-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb