On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 02:07:31PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
>
> Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > Hi, Alistair,
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 10:54:26AM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> >> Now that DAX is managing page reference counts the same as normal
> >> pages there are no callers for vmf_insert_pXd functions so remove
> >> them.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alistair Popple <apop...@nvidia.com>
> >> ---
> >> include/linux/huge_mm.h | 2 +-
> >> mm/huge_memory.c | 165 +-----------------------------------------
> >> 2 files changed, 167 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/include/linux/huge_mm.h b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> >> index 9207d8e..0fb6bff 100644
> >> --- a/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> >> +++ b/include/linux/huge_mm.h
> >> @@ -37,8 +37,6 @@ int change_huge_pmd(struct mmu_gather *tlb, struct
> >> vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> pmd_t *pmd, unsigned long addr, pgprot_t newprot,
> >> unsigned long cp_flags);
> >>
> >> -vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool
> >> write);
> >> -vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool
> >> write);
> >> vm_fault_t dax_insert_pfn_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool
> >> write);
> >> vm_fault_t dax_insert_pfn_pud(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool
> >> write);
> >
> > There's a plan to support huge pfnmaps in VFIO, which may still make good
> > use of these functions. I think it's fine to remove them but it may mean
> > we'll need to add them back when supporting pfnmaps with no memmap.
>
> I'm ok with that. If we need them back in future it shouldn't be too
> hard to add them back again. I just couldn't find any callers of them
> once DAX stopped using them and the usual policy is to remove unused
> functions.
True. Currently the pmd/pud helpers are only used in dax.
>
> > Is it still possible to make the old API generic to both service the new
> > dax refcount plan, but at the meantime working for pfn injections when
> > there's no page struct?
>
> I don't think so - this new dax refcount plan relies on having a struct
> page to take references on so I don't think it makes much sense to
> combine it with something that doesn't have a struct page. It sounds
> like the situation is the analogue of vm_insert_page()
> vs. vmf_insert_pfn() - it's possible for both to exist but there's not
> really anything that can be shared between the two APIs as one has a
> page and the other is just a raw PFN.
I still think most of the codes should be shared on e.g. most of sanity
checks, pgtable injections, pgtable deposits (for pmd) and so on.
To be explicit, I wonder whether something like below diff would be
applicable on top of the patch "huge_memory: Allow mappings of PMD sized
pages" in this series, which introduced dax_insert_pfn_pmd() for dax:
$ diff origin new
1c1
< vm_fault_t dax_insert_pfn_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
---
> vm_fault_t vmf_insert_pfn_pmd(struct vm_fault *vmf, pfn_t pfn, bool write)
55,58c55,60
< folio = page_folio(page);
< folio_get(folio);
< folio_add_file_rmap_pmd(folio, page, vma);
< add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio), HPAGE_PMD_NR);
---
> if (page) {
> folio = page_folio(page);
> folio_get(folio);
> folio_add_file_rmap_pmd(folio, page, vma);
> add_mm_counter(mm, mm_counter_file(folio), HPAGE_PMD_NR);
> }
As most of the rest look very similar to what pfn injections would need..
and in the PoC of ours we're using vmf_insert_pfn_pmd/pud().
That also reminds me on whether it'll be easier to implement the new dax
support for page struct on top of vmf_insert_pfn_pmd/pud, rather than
removing the 1st then adding the new one. Maybe it'll reduce code churns,
and would that also make reviews easier?
It's also possible I missed something important so the old function must be
removed.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
