[RFC PATCH 1/2] mm,drm/ttm: Block fast GUP to TTM huge pages

[Thomas Hellström (Intel)]

On 3/23/21 5:37 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 05:34:51PM +0100, Thomas Hellström (Intel) wrote:
>
>>>> @@ -210,6 +211,20 @@ static vm_fault_t ttm_bo_vm_insert_huge(struct vm_fault *vmf,
>>>>    	if ((pfn & (fault_page_size - 1)) != 0)
>>>>    		goto out_fallback;
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * Huge entries must be special, that is marking them as devmap
>>>> +	 * with no backing device map range. If there is a backing
>>>> +	 * range, Don't insert a huge entry.
>>>> +	 * If this check turns out to be too much of a performance hit,
>>>> +	 * we can instead have drivers indicate whether they may have
>>>> +	 * backing device map ranges and if not, skip this lookup.
>>>> +	 */
>>> I think we can do this statically:
>>> - if it's system memory we know there's no devmap for it, and we do the
>>>     trick to block gup_fast
>> Yes, that should work.
>>> - if it's iomem, we know gup_fast wont work anyway if don't set PFN_DEV,
>>>     so might as well not do that
>> I think gup_fast will unfortunately mistake a huge iomem page for an
>> ordinary page and try to access a non-existant struct page for it, unless we
>> do the devmap trick.
>>
>> And the lookup would then be for the rare case where a driver would have
>> already registered a dev_pagemap for an iomem area which may also be mapped
>> through TTM (like the patch from Felix a couple of weeks ago). If a driver
>> can promise not to do that, then we can safely remove the lookup.
> Isn't the devmap PTE flag arch optional? Does this fall back to not
> using huge pages on arches that don't support it?

Good point. No, currently it's only conditioned on transhuge page support.
Need to condition it on also devmap support.

>
> Also, I feel like this code to install "pte_special" huge pages does
> not belong in the drm subsystem..

I could add helpers in huge_memory.c:

vmf_insert_pfn_pmd_prot_special() and
vmf_insert_pfn_pud_prot_special()

/Thomas

>
> Jason