[PATCH v2 06/13] mm/gup: Drop folio_fast_pin_allowed() in hugepd processing

[Christophe Leroy]

Le 16/01/2024 à 13:31, Jason Gunthorpe a écrit :
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2024 at 06:30:39AM +0000, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>>
>>
>> Le 15/01/2024 à 19:37, Jason Gunthorpe a écrit :
>>> On Wed, Jan 03, 2024 at 05:14:16PM +0800, peterx at redhat.com wrote:
>>>> From: Peter Xu <peterx at redhat.com>
>>>>
>>>> Hugepd format for GUP is only used in PowerPC with hugetlbfs.  There are
>>>> some kernel usage of hugepd (can refer to hugepd_populate_kernel() for
>>>> PPC_8XX), however those pages are not candidates for GUP.
>>>>
>>>> Commit a6e79df92e4a ("mm/gup: disallow FOLL_LONGTERM GUP-fast writing to
>>>> file-backed mappings") added a check to fail gup-fast if there's potential
>>>> risk of violating GUP over writeback file systems.  That should never apply
>>>> to hugepd.  Considering that hugepd is an old format (and even
>>>> software-only), there's no plan to extend hugepd into other file typed
>>>> memories that is prone to the same issue.
>>>
>>> I didn't dig into the ppc stuff too deeply, but this looks to me like
>>> it is the same thing as ARM's contig bits?
>>>
>>> ie a chunk of PMD/etc entries are all managed together as though they
>>> are a virtual larger entry and we use the hugepte_addr_end() stuff to
>>> iterate over each sub entry.
>>
>> As far as I understand ARM's contig stuff, hugepd on powerpc is
>> something different.
>>
>> hugepd is a page directory dedicated to huge pages, where you have huge
>> pages listed instead of regular pages. For instance, on powerpc 32 with
>> each PGD entries covering 4Mbytes, a regular page table has 1024 PTEs. A
>> hugepd for 512k is a page table with 8 entries.
>>
>> And for 8Mbytes entries, the hugepd is a page table with only one entry.
>> And 2 consecutive PGS entries will point to the same hugepd to cover the
>> entire 8Mbytes.
> 
> That still sounds alot like the ARM thing - except ARM replicates the
> entry, you also said PPC relicates the entry like ARM to get to the
> 8M?

Is it like ARM ? Not sure. The PTE is not in the PGD it must be in a L2 
directory, even for 8M.

You can see in attached picture what the hardware expects.

> 
> I guess the difference is in how the table memory is layed out? ARM
> marks the size in the same entry that has the physical address so the
> entries are self describing and then replicated. It kind of sounds
> like PPC is marking the size in prior level and then reconfiguring the
> layout of the lower level? Otherwise it surely must do the same
> replication to make a radix index work..

Yes that's how it works on powerpc. For 8xx we used to do that for both 
8M and 512k pages. Now for 512k pages we do kind of like ARM (which 
means replicating the entry 128 times) as that's needed to allow mixing 
different page sizes for a given PGD entry.

But for 8M pages that would mean replicating the entry 2048 times. 
That's a bit too much isn't it ?

> 
> If yes, I guess that is the main problem, the mm APIs don't have way
> today to convey data from the pgd level to understand how to parse the
> pmd level?
> 
>>> It seems to me we should see ARM and PPC agree on what the API is for
>>> this and then get rid of hugepd by making both use the same page table
>>> walker API. Is that too hopeful?
>>
>> Can't see the similarity between ARM contig PTE and PPC huge page
>> directories.
> 
> Well, they are both variable sized entries.
> 
> So if you imagine a pmd_leaf(), pmd_leaf_size() and a pte_leaf_size()
> that would return enough information for both.

pmd_leaf() ? Unless I'm missing something I can't do leaf at PMD (PGD) 
level. It must be a two-level process even for pages bigger than a PMD 
entry.

Christophe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MPC8xx_page_tables.png
Type: image/png
Size: 126859 bytes
Desc: MPC8xx_page_tables.png
URL: <http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/linux-riscv/attachments/20240116/637bb875/attachment.png>