Re: [PATCH] mm: Teach pfn_to_online_page() about ZONE_DEVICE section collisions

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 12.01.21 10:18, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 7, 2021 at 1:16 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Well, I would love to have no surprises either. So far there was not
>>>>> actual argument why the pmem reserved space cannot be fully initialized.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I'm still hoping Dan can clarify that.
>>>
>>> Complexity and effective utility (once pfn_to_online_page() is fixed)
>>> are the roadblocks in my mind. The altmap is there to allow for PMEM
>>> capacity to be used as memmap space, so there would need to be code to
>>> break that circular dependency and allocate a memmap for the metadata
>>> space from DRAM and the rest of the memmap space for the data capacity
>>> from pmem itself. That memmap-for-pmem-metadata will still represent
>>> offline pages. So once pfn_to_online_page() is fixed, what pfn-walker
>>> is going to be doing pfn_to_page() on PMEM metadata? Secondly, there
>>
>> Assume I do
>>
>> pgmap = get_dev_pagemap(pfn, NULL);
>> if (pgmap)
>>         return pfn_to_page(pfn);
>> return NULL;
>>
>> on a random pfn because I want to inspect ZONE_DEVICE PFNs.
> 
> I keep getting hung up on the motivation to do random pfn inspection?
> 
> The problems we have found to date have required different solutions.
> The KVM bug didn't use get_dev_pagemap() to inspect the pfn because it
> could rely on the fact that the page already had an elevated reference
> count. The get_user_pages() path only looks up ZONE_DEVICE pfns when
> it see {pte,pmd,pud}_devmap set in the page table entry. pfn walkers
> have been a problem, but with pfn_to_online_page() fixed what is the
> remaining motivation to inspect ZONE_DEVICE pfns?

1) Let's assume we want to implement zone shrinking
(remove_pfn_range_from_zone()->shrink_zone_span()) for ZONE_DEVICE at
some point.

A simple approach would be going via get_dev_pagemap(pfn,
NULL)->pfn_to_page(pfn), checking for the zone.

If that's not possible, then extending dev_pagemap (e.g., indicating the
nid) might also work (unless there is another way to get the nid).


2) Let's take a look at mm/memory-failure.c:memory_failure_dev_pagemap()

IIUC, we might end up doing pfn_to_page(pfn) on a pfn in the reserved
altmap space, so one with an uninitialized memmap.

E.g., in dax_lock_page() we access page->mapping, which might just be
garbage. dax_mapping() will de-reference garbage.

Most probably I am missing something here.



Question is: what are the expectations regarding the memmap if
get_dev_pagemap() succeeded.

I'm fine documenting that "get_dev_pagemap() does not guarantee that the
"struct page" returned by pfn_to_page() was initialized and can safely
be used. E.g., it might be a pfn in the reserved altmap space, for which
the memmap is never initialized. Accessing it might be dangerous.".

Then, there has to be a check at relevant places (e.g.,
memory_failure_dev_pagemap()), checking somehow if the memmap content
can actually be used.

-- 
Thanks,

David / dhildenb