On 07/30, Song Liu wrote:
>
>
> > On Jul 30, 2019, at 9:11 AM, Oleg Nesterov <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > So after the next patch we have a single user of FOLL_SPLIT_PMD (uprobes)
> > and a single user of FOLL_SPLIT: arch/s390/mm/gmap.c:thp_split_mm().
> >
> > Hmm.
>
> I think this is what we want. :)
We? I don't ;)
> FOLL_SPLIT is the fallback solution for users who cannot handle THP.
and again, we have a single user: thp_split_mm(). I do not know if it
can use FOLL_SPLIT_PMD or not, may be you can take a look...
> With
> more THP aware code, there will be fewer users of FOLL_SPLIT.
Fewer than 1? Good ;)
> >> @@ -399,7 +399,7 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct
> >> vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> spin_unlock(ptl);
> >> return follow_page_pte(vma, address, pmd, flags, &ctx->pgmap);
> >> }
> >> - if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
> >> + if (flags & (FOLL_SPLIT | FOLL_SPLIT_PMD)) {
> >> int ret;
> >> page = pmd_page(*pmd);
> >> if (is_huge_zero_page(page)) {
> >> @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct
> >> vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
> >> if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
> >> ret = -EBUSY;
> >> - } else {
> >> + } else if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
> >> if (unlikely(!try_get_page(page))) {
> >> spin_unlock(ptl);
> >> return ERR_PTR(-ENOMEM);
> >> @@ -420,6 +420,10 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct
> >> vm_area_struct *vma,
> >> put_page(page);
> >> if (pmd_none(*pmd))
> >> return no_page_table(vma, flags);
> >> + } else { /* flags & FOLL_SPLIT_PMD */
> >> + spin_unlock(ptl);
> >> + split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
> >> + ret = pte_alloc(mm, pmd);
> >
> > I fail to understand why this differs from the is_huge_zero_page() case
> > above.
>
> split_huge_pmd() handles is_huge_zero_page() differently. In this case, we
> cannot use the pmd_trans_unstable() check.
Please correct me, but iiuc the problem is not that split_huge_pmd() handles
is_huge_zero_page() differently, the problem is that __split_huge_pmd_locked()
handles the !vma_is_anonymous(vma) differently and returns with pmd_none() = T
after pmdp_huge_clear_flush_notify(). This means that pmd_trans_unstable() will
fail.
Now, I don't understand why do we need pmd_trans_unstable() after
split_huge_pmd(huge-zero-pmd), but whatever reason we have, why can't we
unify both cases?
IOW, could you explain why the path below is wrong?
Oleg.
--- x/mm/gup.c
+++ x/mm/gup.c
@@ -399,14 +399,16 @@ static struct page *follow_pmd_mask(struct vm_area_struct
*vma,
spin_unlock(ptl);
return follow_page_pte(vma, address, pmd, flags, &ctx->pgmap);
}
- if (flags & FOLL_SPLIT) {
+ if (flags & (FOLL_SPLIT | FOLL_SPLIT_PMD)) {
int ret;
page = pmd_page(*pmd);
- if (is_huge_zero_page(page)) {
+ if ((flags & FOLL_SPLIT_PMD) || is_huge_zero_page(page)) {
spin_unlock(ptl);
- ret = 0;
split_huge_pmd(vma, pmd, address);
- if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
+ ret = 0;
+ if (pte_alloc(mm, pmd))
+ ret = -ENOMEM;
+ else if (pmd_trans_unstable(pmd))
ret = -EBUSY;
} else {
if (unlikely(!try_get_page(page))) {
