[PATCH v3 2/8] mm: remove extra ZONE_DEVICE struct page refcount

Ralph Campbell rcampbell at nvidia.com
Wed Jun 30 00:23:24 UTC 2021

On 6/28/21 9:46 AM, Felix Kuehling wrote:
> Am 2021-06-17 um 3:16 p.m. schrieb Ralph Campbell:
>> On 6/17/21 8:16 AM, Alex Sierra wrote:
>>> From: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell at nvidia.com>
>>> ZONE_DEVICE struct pages have an extra reference count that
>>> complicates the
>>> code for put_page() and several places in the kernel that need to
>>> check the
>>> reference count to see that a page is not being used (gup, compaction,
>>> migration, etc.). Clean up the code so the reference count doesn't
>>> need to
>>> be treated specially for ZONE_DEVICE.
>>> v2:
>>> AS: merged this patch in linux 5.11 version
>>> Signed-off-by: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell at nvidia.com>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alex Sierra <alex.sierra at amd.com>
>>> ---
>>>    arch/powerpc/kvm/book3s_hv_uvmem.c     |  2 +-
>>>    drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_dmem.c |  2 +-
>>>    fs/dax.c                               |  4 +-
>>>    include/linux/dax.h                    |  2 +-
>>>    include/linux/memremap.h               |  7 +--
>>>    include/linux/mm.h                     | 44 -----------------
>>>    lib/test_hmm.c                         |  2 +-
>>>    mm/internal.h                          |  8 +++
>>>    mm/memremap.c                          | 68 +++++++-------------------
>>>    mm/migrate.c                           |  5 --
>>>    mm/page_alloc.c                        |  3 ++
>>>    mm/swap.c                              | 45 ++---------------
>>>    12 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 147 deletions(-)
>> I think it is great that you are picking this up and trying to revive it.
>> However, I have a number of concerns about how it affects existing
>> MEMORY_DEVICE_GENERIC and MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX users and I don't see this
>> addressing them. For example, dev_dax_probe() allocates
>> struct pages and then:
>>    dev_dax_fault()
>>      dev_dax_huge_fault()
>>        __dev_dax_pte_fault()
>>          vmf_insert_mixed()
>> which just inserts the PFN into the CPU page tables without increasing
>> the page
>> refcount so it is zero (whereas it was one before). But using
>> get_page() will
>> trigger VM_BUG_ON_PAGE() if it is enabled. There isn't any current
>> notion of
>> free verses allocated for these struct pages. I suppose init_page_count()
>> could be called on all the struct pages in dev_dax_probe() to fix that
>> though.
> Hi Ralph,
> For DEVICE_GENERIC pages free_zone_device_page doesn't do anything. So
> I'm not sure what the reference counting is good for in this case.
> Alex is going to add free_zone_device_page support for DEVICE_GENERIC
> pages (patch 8 of this series). However, even then, it only does
> anything if there is an actual call to put_page. Where would that call
> come from in the dev_dax driver case?

Correct, the drivers/dax/device.c driver allocates MEMORY_DEVICE_GENERIC
struct pages and doesn't seem to allocate/free the page nor increment/decrement
the reference count but it does call vmf_insert_mixed() if the /dev/file
is mmap()'ed into a user process' address space. If devm_memremap_pages()
returns the array of ZONE_DEVICE struct pages initialized with a reference
count of zero, then the CPU page tables will have a PTE/PFN that points to
a struct page with a zero reference count. This goes against the normal
expectation in the rest of the mm code that assumes a page mapped by a CPU
has a non-zero reference count.
So yes, nothing "bad" happens because put_page() isn't called but the
reference count will differ from other drivers that call vmf_insert_mixed()
or vm_insert_page() where the page was allocated with alloc_pages() or

>> I'm even less clear about how to fix MEMORY_DEVICE_FS_DAX. File
>> systems have clear
>> allocate and free states for backing storage but there are the
>> complications with
>> the page cache references, etc. to consider. The >1 to 1 reference
>> count seems to
>> be used to tell when a page is idle (no I/O, reclaim scanners) rather
>> than free
>> (not allocated to any file) but I'm not 100% sure about that since I
>> don't really
>> understand all the issues around why a file system needs to have a DAX
>> mount option
>> besides knowing that the storage block size has to be a multiple of
>> the page size.
> The only thing that happens in free_zone_device_page for FS_DAX pages is
> wake_up_var(&page->_refcount). I guess, whoever is waiting for this
> wake-up will need to be prepared to see a refcount 0 instead of 1 now. I
> see these callers that would need to be updated:
> ./fs/ext4/inode.c:        error = ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount,
> ./fs/ext4/inode.c-                atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1,
> ./fs/ext4/inode.c-                TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, 0, 0,
> ./fs/ext4/inode.c-                ext4_wait_dax_page(ei));
> --
> ./fs/fuse/dax.c:    return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount,
> ./fs/fuse/dax.c-            atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1,
> ./fs/fuse/dax.c-            0, 0, fuse_wait_dax_page(inode));
> --
> ./fs/xfs/xfs_file.c:    return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount,
> ./fs/xfs/xfs_file.c-            atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1,
> ./fs/xfs/xfs_file.c-            0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode));
> Regarding your page-cache comment, doesn't DAX mean that those file
> pages are not in the page cache?
> Regards,
>    Felix
I don't really understand the FS_DAX code. I can see the __wait_var_event()
is being used when truncating or punching holes in files but I'm not
quite sure if it is using the >1 to 1 reference count to know when a
page has no "extra" references or if it means the page is actually
"free" and no longer assigned to a file.
I really think some FS_DAX expert needs to weigh in on these reference count

More information about the amd-gfx mailing list