Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.kernel > #1508713 > unrolled thread

[PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

Contents

  [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 01:40 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 01:50 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-10-26 11:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 11:40 +0200
          Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-10-26 12:00 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 10:10 +0200
      Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-10-26 11:10 +0200
    Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org> - 2016-10-26 11:20 +0200
    [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-26 11:30 +0200
      Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked()  calls Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2016-10-27 02:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked()  calls Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 09:10 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked()  calls Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com> - 2016-10-27 15:50 +0200
          Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked()  calls Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> - 2016-10-27 17:20 +0200
        Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked()  calls Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> - 2016-10-27 17:40 +0200

#1508713 — [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls

In hva_to_pfn_slow() we are able to replace __get_user_pages_unlocked() with
get_user_pages_unlocked() since we can now pass gup_flags.

In async_pf_execute() we need to pass different tsk, mm arguments so
get_user_pages_remote() is the sane replacement here (having added manual
acquisition and release of mmap_sem.)

Since we pass a NULL pages parameter the subsequent call to
__get_user_pages_locked() will have previously bailed any attempt at
VM_FAULT_RETRY, so we do not change this behaviour by using
get_user_pages_remote() which does not invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY logic at all.

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
---
 virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 7 ++++---
 virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 5 ++---
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/async_pf.c b/virt/kvm/async_pf.c
index 8035cc1..e8c832c 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/async_pf.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/async_pf.c
@@ -82,10 +82,11 @@ static void async_pf_execute(struct work_struct *work)
 	/*
 	 * This work is run asynchromously to the task which owns
 	 * mm and might be done in another context, so we must
-	 * use FOLL_REMOTE.
+	 * access remotely.
 	 */
-	__get_user_pages_unlocked(NULL, mm, addr, 1, NULL,
-			FOLL_WRITE | FOLL_REMOTE);
+	down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
+	get_user_pages_remote(NULL, mm, addr, 1, FOLL_WRITE, NULL, NULL);
+	up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);

 	kvm_async_page_present_sync(vcpu, apf);

diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 2907b7b..c45d951 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -1415,13 +1415,12 @@ static int hva_to_pfn_slow(unsigned long addr, bool *async, bool write_fault,
 		npages = get_user_page_nowait(addr, write_fault, page);
 		up_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
 	} else {
-		unsigned int flags = FOLL_TOUCH | FOLL_HWPOISON;
+		unsigned int flags = FOLL_HWPOISON;

 		if (write_fault)
 			flags |= FOLL_WRITE;

-		npages = __get_user_pages_unlocked(current, current->mm, addr, 1,
-						   page, flags);
+		npages = get_user_pages_unlocked(addr, 1, page, flags);
 	}
 	if (npages != 1)
 		return npages;
--
2.10.1

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#1508715

The holdout for unexporting __get_user_pages_unlocked() is its invocation in
mm/process_vm_access.c: process_vm_rw_single_vec(), as this definitely _does_
seem to invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour which get_user_pages_remote() will not
trigger if we were to replace it with the latter.

I'm not sure how to proceed in this case - get_user_pages_remote() invocations
assume mmap_sem is held so can't offer VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour as the lock
can't be assumed to be safe to release, and get_user_pages_unlocked() assumes
tsk, mm are set to current, current->mm respectively so we can't use that here
either.

Is it important to retain VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour here, does it matter? If it
isn't so important then we can just go ahead and replace with
get_user_pages_remote() and unexport away.

Of course the whole idea of unexporting __get_user_pages_unlocked() might be
bogus so let me know in that case also :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1508986

On Wed 26-10-16 00:46:31, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> The holdout for unexporting __get_user_pages_unlocked() is its invocation in
> mm/process_vm_access.c: process_vm_rw_single_vec(), as this definitely _does_
> seem to invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour which get_user_pages_remote() will not
> trigger if we were to replace it with the latter.

I am not sure I understand. Prior to 1e9877902dc7e this used
get_user_pages_unlocked. What prevents us from reintroducing it with
FOLL_REMOVE which was meant to be added by the above commit?

Or am I missing your point?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1509007

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:15:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-10-16 00:46:31, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > The holdout for unexporting __get_user_pages_unlocked() is its invocation in
> > mm/process_vm_access.c: process_vm_rw_single_vec(), as this definitely _does_
> > seem to invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour which get_user_pages_remote() will not
> > trigger if we were to replace it with the latter.
>
> I am not sure I understand. Prior to 1e9877902dc7e this used
> get_user_pages_unlocked. What prevents us from reintroducing it with
> FOLL_REMOVE which was meant to be added by the above commit?
>
> Or am I missing your point?

The issue isn't the flags being passed, rather that in this case:

a. Replacing __get_user_pages_unlocked() with get_user_pages_unlocked() won't
   work as the latter assumes task = current and mm = current->mm but
   process_vm_rw_single_vec() needs to pass different task, mm.

b. Moving to get_user_pages_remote() _will_ allow us to pass different task, mm
   but won't however match existing behaviour precisely, since
   __get_user_pages_unlocked() acquires mmap_sem then passes a pointer to a
   local 'locked' variable to __get_user_pages_locked() which allows
   VM_FAULT_RETRY to trigger.

The main issue I had here was not being sure whether we care about the
VM_FAULT_RETRY functionality being used here or not, if we don't care then we
can just move to get_user_pages_remote(), otherwise perhaps this should be left
alone or maybe we need to consider adjusting the API to allow for remote access
with VM_FAULT_RETRY functionality.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1509015

On Wed 26-10-16 10:39:13, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:15:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Wed 26-10-16 00:46:31, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > > The holdout for unexporting __get_user_pages_unlocked() is its invocation in
> > > mm/process_vm_access.c: process_vm_rw_single_vec(), as this definitely _does_
> > > seem to invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour which get_user_pages_remote() will not
> > > trigger if we were to replace it with the latter.
> >
> > I am not sure I understand. Prior to 1e9877902dc7e this used
> > get_user_pages_unlocked. What prevents us from reintroducing it with
> > FOLL_REMOVE which was meant to be added by the above commit?
> >
> > Or am I missing your point?
> 
> The issue isn't the flags being passed, rather that in this case:
> 
> a. Replacing __get_user_pages_unlocked() with get_user_pages_unlocked() won't
>    work as the latter assumes task = current and mm = current->mm but
>    process_vm_rw_single_vec() needs to pass different task, mm.

Ohh, right. I should have checked more closely.

> b. Moving to get_user_pages_remote() _will_ allow us to pass different task, mm
>    but won't however match existing behaviour precisely, since
>    __get_user_pages_unlocked() acquires mmap_sem then passes a pointer to a
>    local 'locked' variable to __get_user_pages_locked() which allows
>    VM_FAULT_RETRY to trigger.

I do not see any reason why get_user_pages_remote should implicitely
disallow VM_FAULT_RETRY. Releasing the mmap_sem on a remote task when we
have to wait for IO is a good thing in general. So I would rather see a
way to do allow that. Doing that implicitly sounds too dangerous and
maybe we even have users which wouldn't cope with the mmap sem being
dropped (get_arg_page sounds like a potential example) so I would rather
add locked * parameter to get_user_pages_remote.

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1508898

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:36:09AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> In hva_to_pfn_slow() we are able to replace __get_user_pages_unlocked() with
> get_user_pages_unlocked() since we can now pass gup_flags.
>
> In async_pf_execute() we need to pass different tsk, mm arguments so
> get_user_pages_remote() is the sane replacement here (having added manual
> acquisition and release of mmap_sem.)
>
> Since we pass a NULL pages parameter the subsequent call to
> __get_user_pages_locked() will have previously bailed any attempt at
> VM_FAULT_RETRY, so we do not change this behaviour by using
> get_user_pages_remote() which does not invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY logic at all.
>
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>

Note that the use of get_user_pages_remote() in async_pf_execute() reintroduces
the use of the FOLL_TOUCH flag - I don't think this is a problem as this flag
was dropped by 1e987790 ("mm/gup: Introduce get_user_pages_remote()") which
states 'Without protection keys, this patch should not change any behavior', so
I don't think this was intentional.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1508964

On Wed 26-10-16 08:59:52, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:36:09AM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > In hva_to_pfn_slow() we are able to replace __get_user_pages_unlocked() with
> > get_user_pages_unlocked() since we can now pass gup_flags.
> >
> > In async_pf_execute() we need to pass different tsk, mm arguments so
> > get_user_pages_remote() is the sane replacement here (having added manual
> > acquisition and release of mmap_sem.)
> >
> > Since we pass a NULL pages parameter the subsequent call to
> > __get_user_pages_locked() will have previously bailed any attempt at
> > VM_FAULT_RETRY, so we do not change this behaviour by using
> > get_user_pages_remote() which does not invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY logic at all.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
> 
> Note that the use of get_user_pages_remote() in async_pf_execute() reintroduces
> the use of the FOLL_TOUCH flag - I don't think this is a problem as this flag
> was dropped by 1e987790 ("mm/gup: Introduce get_user_pages_remote()") which
> states 'Without protection keys, this patch should not change any behavior', so
> I don't think this was intentional.

Yes, I have already mentioned this in one of my previous emails. This
indeed doesn't seem to be intentional

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1508980

On Wed 26-10-16 00:36:09, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> In hva_to_pfn_slow() we are able to replace __get_user_pages_unlocked() with
> get_user_pages_unlocked() since we can now pass gup_flags.
> 
> In async_pf_execute() we need to pass different tsk, mm arguments so
> get_user_pages_remote() is the sane replacement here (having added manual
> acquisition and release of mmap_sem.)

please also add a note about the FOLL_TOUCH reintroduced after it has
been dropped by 1e9877902dc7e silently
 
> Since we pass a NULL pages parameter the subsequent call to
> __get_user_pages_locked() will have previously bailed any attempt at
> VM_FAULT_RETRY, so we do not change this behaviour by using
> get_user_pages_remote() which does not invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY logic at all.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>

Acked-by: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>

> ---
>  virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 7 ++++---
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 5 ++---
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/async_pf.c b/virt/kvm/async_pf.c
> index 8035cc1..e8c832c 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/async_pf.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/async_pf.c
> @@ -82,10 +82,11 @@ static void async_pf_execute(struct work_struct *work)
>  	/*
>  	 * This work is run asynchromously to the task which owns
>  	 * mm and might be done in another context, so we must
> -	 * use FOLL_REMOTE.
> +	 * access remotely.
>  	 */
> -	__get_user_pages_unlocked(NULL, mm, addr, 1, NULL,
> -			FOLL_WRITE | FOLL_REMOTE);
> +	down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> +	get_user_pages_remote(NULL, mm, addr, 1, FOLL_WRITE, NULL, NULL);
> +	up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> 
>  	kvm_async_page_present_sync(vcpu, apf);
> 
> diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> index 2907b7b..c45d951 100644
> --- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> +++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
> @@ -1415,13 +1415,12 @@ static int hva_to_pfn_slow(unsigned long addr, bool *async, bool write_fault,
>  		npages = get_user_page_nowait(addr, write_fault, page);
>  		up_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
>  	} else {
> -		unsigned int flags = FOLL_TOUCH | FOLL_HWPOISON;
> +		unsigned int flags = FOLL_HWPOISON;
> 
>  		if (write_fault)
>  			flags |= FOLL_WRITE;
> 
> -		npages = __get_user_pages_unlocked(current, current->mm, addr, 1,
> -						   page, flags);
> +		npages = get_user_pages_unlocked(addr, 1, page, flags);
>  	}
>  	if (npages != 1)
>  		return npages;
> --
> 2.10.1

-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1508988 — [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls

In hva_to_pfn_slow() we are able to replace __get_user_pages_unlocked() with
get_user_pages_unlocked() since we can now pass gup_flags.

In async_pf_execute() we need to pass different tsk, mm arguments so
get_user_pages_remote() is the sane replacement here (having added manual
acquisition and release of mmap_sem.)

Since we pass a NULL pages parameter the subsequent call to
__get_user_pages_locked() will have previously bailed any attempt at
VM_FAULT_RETRY, so we do not change this behaviour by using
get_user_pages_remote() which does not invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY logic at all.

Additionally get_user_pages_remote() reintroduces use of the FOLL_TOUCH
flag. However, this flag was originally silently dropped by 1e9877902dc7e
("mm/gup: Introduce get_user_pages_remote()"), so this appears to have been
unintentional and reintroducing it is therefore not an issue.

Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@gmail.com>
---
v2: update description to reference dropped FOLL_TOUCH flag

 virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 7 ++++---
 virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 5 ++---
 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/virt/kvm/async_pf.c b/virt/kvm/async_pf.c
index 8035cc1..e8c832c 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/async_pf.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/async_pf.c
@@ -82,10 +82,11 @@ static void async_pf_execute(struct work_struct *work)
 	/*
 	 * This work is run asynchromously to the task which owns
 	 * mm and might be done in another context, so we must
-	 * use FOLL_REMOTE.
+	 * access remotely.
 	 */
-	__get_user_pages_unlocked(NULL, mm, addr, 1, NULL,
-			FOLL_WRITE | FOLL_REMOTE);
+	down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
+	get_user_pages_remote(NULL, mm, addr, 1, FOLL_WRITE, NULL, NULL);
+	up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);

 	kvm_async_page_present_sync(vcpu, apf);

diff --git a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
index 2907b7b..c45d951 100644
--- a/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
+++ b/virt/kvm/kvm_main.c
@@ -1415,13 +1415,12 @@ static int hva_to_pfn_slow(unsigned long addr, bool *async, bool write_fault,
 		npages = get_user_page_nowait(addr, write_fault, page);
 		up_read(&current->mm->mmap_sem);
 	} else {
-		unsigned int flags = FOLL_TOUCH | FOLL_HWPOISON;
+		unsigned int flags = FOLL_HWPOISON;

 		if (write_fault)
 			flags |= FOLL_WRITE;

-		npages = __get_user_pages_unlocked(current, current->mm, addr, 1,
-						   page, flags);
+		npages = get_user_pages_unlocked(addr, 1, page, flags);
 	}
 	if (npages != 1)
 		return npages;
--
2.10.1

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1509974 — Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls

> Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls

The patch is rather misidentified.

>  virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 7 ++++---
>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 5 ++---
>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)

It's a KVM patch and should have been called "kvm: remove ...". 
Possibly the KVM maintainers will miss it for this reason.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1510099 — Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls

On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 05:12:07PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> It's a KVM patch and should have been called "kvm: remove ...".
> Possibly the KVM maintainers will miss it for this reason.
>

Ah, indeed, however I think given my and Michal's discussion in this thread
regarding adjusting get_user_pages_remote() to allow for the unexporting of
__get_user_pages_unlocked() it would make more sense for me to batch up this
change with that change also (and then in fact actually be an mm patch.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1510147 — Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls

On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:27:24AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 27/10/2016 02:12, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >
> >
> >> Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls
> >
> > The patch is rather misidentified.
> >
> >>  virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 7 ++++---
> >>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 5 ++---
> >>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >
> > It's a KVM patch and should have been called "kvm: remove ...".
> > Possibly the KVM maintainers will miss it for this reason.
>
> I noticed it, but I confused it with "mm: unexport __get_user_pages()".
>
> I'll merge this through the KVM tree for -rc3.

Actually Paolo could you hold off on this? As I think on reflection it'd make
more sense to batch this change up with a change to get_user_pages_remote() as
suggested by Michal.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1510387 — Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls

On 27/10/2016 11:32, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:27:24AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 27/10/2016 02:12, Andrew Morton wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls
>>>
>>> The patch is rather misidentified.
>>>
>>>>  virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 7 ++++---
>>>>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 5 ++---
>>>>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> It's a KVM patch and should have been called "kvm: remove ...".
>>> Possibly the KVM maintainers will miss it for this reason.
>>
>> I noticed it, but I confused it with "mm: unexport __get_user_pages()".
>>
>> I'll merge this through the KVM tree for -rc3.
> 
> Actually Paolo could you hold off on this? As I think on reflection it'd make
> more sense to batch this change up with a change to get_user_pages_remote() as
> suggested by Michal.

Okay.

Paolo

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#1510401 — Re: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls

On 27/10/2016 02:12, Andrew Morton wrote:
> 
> 
>> Subject: [PATCH v2] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls
> 
> The patch is rather misidentified.
> 
>>  virt/kvm/async_pf.c | 7 ++++---
>>  virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 5 ++---
>>  2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> 
> It's a KVM patch and should have been called "kvm: remove ...". 
> Possibly the KVM maintainers will miss it for this reason.

I noticed it, but I confused it with "mm: unexport __get_user_pages()".

I'll merge this through the KVM tree for -rc3.

Paolo

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel

csiph-web