[PATCH 0/2] vhost, docs: convert to pin_user_pages(), new "case 5"

[PATCH 0/2] vhost, docs: convert to pin_user_pages(), new "case 5"

[John Hubbard]

Hi,

It recently became clear to me that there are some get_user_pages*()
callers that don't fit neatly into any of the four cases that are so
far listed in pin_user_pages.rst. vhost.c is one of those.

Add a Case 5 to the documentation, and refer to that when converting
vhost.c.

Thanks to Jan Kara for helping me (again) in understanding the
interaction between get_user_pages() and page writeback [1].

This is based on today's mmotm, which has a nearby patch to
pin_user_pages.rst that rewords cases 3 and 4.

Note that I have only compile-tested the vhost.c patch, although that
does also include cross-compiling for a few other arches. Any run-time
testing would be greatly appreciated.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20200529070343.GL14550@quack2.suse.cz

John Hubbard (2):
  docs: mm/gup: pin_user_pages.rst: add a "case 5"
  vhost: convert get_user_pages() --> pin_user_pages()

 Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 drivers/vhost/vhost.c                     |  5 ++---
 2 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH 1/2] docs: mm/gup: pin_user_pages.rst: add a "case 5"

[John Hubbard]

There are four cases listed in pin_user_pages.rst. These are
intended to help developers figure out whether to use
get_user_pages*(), or pin_user_pages*(). However, the four cases
do not cover all the situations. For example, drivers/vhost/vhost.c
has a "pin, write to page, set page dirty, unpin" case.

Add a fifth case, to help explain that there is a general pattern
that requires pin_user_pages*() API calls.

Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
---
 Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)

diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst b/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
index 4675b04e8829..b9f2688a2c67 100644
--- a/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
+++ b/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
@@ -171,6 +171,26 @@ If only struct page data (as opposed to the actual memory contents that a page
 is tracking) is affected, then normal GUP calls are sufficient, and neither flag
 needs to be set.
 
+CASE 5: Pinning in order to write to the data within the page
+-------------------------------------------------------------
+Even though neither DMA nor Direct IO is involved, just a simple case of "pin,
+access page's data, unpin" can cause a problem. Case 5 may be considered a
+superset of Case 1, plus Case 2, plus anything that invokes that pattern. In
+other words, if the code is neither Case 1 nor Case 2, it may still require
+FOLL_PIN, for patterns like this:
+
+Correct (uses FOLL_PIN calls):
+    pin_user_pages()
+    access the data within the pages
+    set_page_dirty_lock()
+    unpin_user_pages()
+
+INCORRECT (uses FOLL_GET calls):
+    get_user_pages()
+    access the data within the pages
+    set_page_dirty_lock()
+    put_page()
+
 page_maybe_dma_pinned(): the whole point of pinning
 ===================================================
 
-- 
2.26.2

[PATCH 2/2] vhost: convert get_user_pages() --> pin_user_pages()

[John Hubbard]

This code was using get_user_pages*(), in approximately a "Case 5"
scenario (accessing the data within a page), using the categorization
from [1]. That means that it's time to convert the get_user_pages*() +
put_page() calls to pin_user_pages*() + unpin_user_pages() calls.

There is some helpful background in [2]: basically, this is a small
part of fixing a long-standing disconnect between pinning pages, and
file systems' use of those pages.

[1] Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst

[2] "Explicit pinning of user-space pages":
    https://lwn.net/Articles/807108/

Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
---
 drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
index 21a59b598ed8..596132a96cd5 100644
--- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
+++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
@@ -1762,15 +1762,14 @@ static int set_bit_to_user(int nr, void __user *addr)
 	int bit = nr + (log % PAGE_SIZE) * 8;
 	int r;
 
-	r = get_user_pages_fast(log, 1, FOLL_WRITE, &page);
+	r = pin_user_pages_fast(log, 1, FOLL_WRITE, &page);
 	if (r < 0)
 		return r;
 	BUG_ON(r != 1);
 	base = kmap_atomic(page);
 	set_bit(bit, base);
 	kunmap_atomic(base);
-	set_page_dirty_lock(page);
-	put_page(page);
+	unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(&page, 1, true);
 	return 0;
 }
 
-- 
2.26.2

Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: mm/gup: pin_user_pages.rst: add a "case 5"

[Souptick Joarder]

On Sat, May 30, 2020 at 5:13 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>
> There are four cases listed in pin_user_pages.rst. These are
> intended to help developers figure out whether to use
> get_user_pages*(), or pin_user_pages*(). However, the four cases
> do not cover all the situations. For example, drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> has a "pin, write to page, set page dirty, unpin" case.
>
> Add a fifth case, to help explain that there is a general pattern
> that requires pin_user_pages*() API calls.
>
> Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>
> Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Cc: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
> Cc: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
> Cc: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
> Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
> ---
>  Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst b/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
> index 4675b04e8829..b9f2688a2c67 100644
> --- a/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
> @@ -171,6 +171,26 @@ If only struct page data (as opposed to the actual memory contents that a page
>  is tracking) is affected, then normal GUP calls are sufficient, and neither flag
>  needs to be set.
>
> +CASE 5: Pinning in order to write to the data within the page
> +-------------------------------------------------------------
> +Even though neither DMA nor Direct IO is involved, just a simple case of "pin,
> +access page's data, unpin" can cause a problem.

Will it be, *"pin, access page's data, set page dirty, unpin" * ?

Case 5 may be considered a
> +superset of Case 1, plus Case 2, plus anything that invokes that pattern. In
> +other words, if the code is neither Case 1 nor Case 2, it may still require
> +FOLL_PIN, for patterns like this:
> +
> +Correct (uses FOLL_PIN calls):
> +    pin_user_pages()
> +    access the data within the pages
> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
> +    unpin_user_pages()
> +
> +INCORRECT (uses FOLL_GET calls):
> +    get_user_pages()
> +    access the data within the pages
> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
> +    put_page()
> +
>  page_maybe_dma_pinned(): the whole point of pinning
>  ===================================================
>
> --
> 2.26.2
>

Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: mm/gup: pin_user_pages.rst: add a "case 5"

[John Hubbard]

On 2020-05-31 00:11, Souptick Joarder wrote:
...
>> diff --git a/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst b/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
>> index 4675b04e8829..b9f2688a2c67 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
>> +++ b/Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
>> @@ -171,6 +171,26 @@ If only struct page data (as opposed to the actual memory contents that a page
>>   is tracking) is affected, then normal GUP calls are sufficient, and neither flag
>>   needs to be set.
>>
>> +CASE 5: Pinning in order to write to the data within the page
>> +-------------------------------------------------------------
>> +Even though neither DMA nor Direct IO is involved, just a simple case of "pin,
>> +access page's data, unpin" can cause a problem.
> 
> Will it be, *"pin, access page's data, set page dirty, unpin" * ?

Well...the problem can show up with just accessing (writing) the data.
But it is true that this statement is a little different from the
patterns below, which is confusing. I'll delete set_page_dirty() from each
of them, in order to avoid confusing things. (Although each is correct.)
And I'll also change the above to "pin, write to a page's data, upin".

set_page_dirty() interactions are really just extra credit here. :) And
fully read-only situations won't cause a problem.

> 
> Case 5 may be considered a
>> +superset of Case 1, plus Case 2, plus anything that invokes that pattern. In
>> +other words, if the code is neither Case 1 nor Case 2, it may still require
>> +FOLL_PIN, for patterns like this:
>> +
>> +Correct (uses FOLL_PIN calls):
>> +    pin_user_pages()
>> +    access the data within the pages
>> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
>> +    unpin_user_pages()
>> +
>> +INCORRECT (uses FOLL_GET calls):
>> +    get_user_pages()
>> +    access the data within the pages
>> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
>> +    put_page()
>> +

I'll send a v2 shortly.

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Re: [PATCH 2/2] vhost: convert get_user_pages() --> pin_user_pages()

[Jan Kara]

On Fri 29-05-20 16:43:09, John Hubbard wrote:
> This code was using get_user_pages*(), in approximately a "Case 5"
> scenario (accessing the data within a page), using the categorization
> from [1]. That means that it's time to convert the get_user_pages*() +
> put_page() calls to pin_user_pages*() + unpin_user_pages() calls.
> 
> There is some helpful background in [2]: basically, this is a small
> part of fixing a long-standing disconnect between pinning pages, and
> file systems' use of those pages.
> 
> [1] Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
> 
> [2] "Explicit pinning of user-space pages":
>     https://lwn.net/Articles/807108/
> 
> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>

Looks good to me. You can add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

								Honza

> ---
>  drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> index 21a59b598ed8..596132a96cd5 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -1762,15 +1762,14 @@ static int set_bit_to_user(int nr, void __user *addr)
>  	int bit = nr + (log % PAGE_SIZE) * 8;
>  	int r;
>  
> -	r = get_user_pages_fast(log, 1, FOLL_WRITE, &page);
> +	r = pin_user_pages_fast(log, 1, FOLL_WRITE, &page);
>  	if (r < 0)
>  		return r;
>  	BUG_ON(r != 1);
>  	base = kmap_atomic(page);
>  	set_bit(bit, base);
>  	kunmap_atomic(base);
> -	set_page_dirty_lock(page);
> -	put_page(page);
> +	unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(&page, 1, true);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.26.2
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [PATCH 2/2] vhost: convert get_user_pages() --> pin_user_pages()

[Michael S. Tsirkin]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 04:43:09PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> This code was using get_user_pages*(), in approximately a "Case 5"
> scenario (accessing the data within a page), using the categorization
> from [1]. That means that it's time to convert the get_user_pages*() +
> put_page() calls to pin_user_pages*() + unpin_user_pages() calls.
> 
> There is some helpful background in [2]: basically, this is a small
> part of fixing a long-standing disconnect between pinning pages, and
> file systems' use of those pages.
> 
> [1] Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
> 
> [2] "Explicit pinning of user-space pages":
>     https://lwn.net/Articles/807108/
> 
> Cc: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org
> Cc: virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org
> Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>

Acked-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>

> ---
>  drivers/vhost/vhost.c | 5 ++---
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> index 21a59b598ed8..596132a96cd5 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -1762,15 +1762,14 @@ static int set_bit_to_user(int nr, void __user *addr)
>  	int bit = nr + (log % PAGE_SIZE) * 8;
>  	int r;
>  
> -	r = get_user_pages_fast(log, 1, FOLL_WRITE, &page);
> +	r = pin_user_pages_fast(log, 1, FOLL_WRITE, &page);
>  	if (r < 0)
>  		return r;
>  	BUG_ON(r != 1);
>  	base = kmap_atomic(page);
>  	set_bit(bit, base);
>  	kunmap_atomic(base);
> -	set_page_dirty_lock(page);
> -	put_page(page);
> +	unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(&page, 1, true);
>  	return 0;
>  }
>  
> -- 
> 2.26.2

Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: mm/gup: pin_user_pages.rst: add a "case 5"

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 04:43:08PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> +CASE 5: Pinning in order to write to the data within the page
> +-------------------------------------------------------------
> +Even though neither DMA nor Direct IO is involved, just a simple case of "pin,
> +access page's data, unpin" can cause a problem. Case 5 may be considered a
> +superset of Case 1, plus Case 2, plus anything that invokes that pattern. In
> +other words, if the code is neither Case 1 nor Case 2, it may still require
> +FOLL_PIN, for patterns like this:
> +
> +Correct (uses FOLL_PIN calls):
> +    pin_user_pages()
> +    access the data within the pages
> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
> +    unpin_user_pages()
> +
> +INCORRECT (uses FOLL_GET calls):
> +    get_user_pages()
> +    access the data within the pages
> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
> +    put_page()

Why does this case need to pin?  Why can't it just do ...

	get_user_pages()
	lock_page(page);
	... modify the data ...
	set_page_dirty(page);
	unlock_page(page);

Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs: mm/gup: pin_user_pages.rst: add a "case 5"

[John Hubbard]

On 2020-06-12 12:24, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 04:43:08PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> +CASE 5: Pinning in order to write to the data within the page
>> +-------------------------------------------------------------
>> +Even though neither DMA nor Direct IO is involved, just a simple case of "pin,
>> +access page's data, unpin" can cause a problem. Case 5 may be considered a
>> +superset of Case 1, plus Case 2, plus anything that invokes that pattern. In
>> +other words, if the code is neither Case 1 nor Case 2, it may still require
>> +FOLL_PIN, for patterns like this:
>> +
>> +Correct (uses FOLL_PIN calls):
>> +    pin_user_pages()
>> +    access the data within the pages
>> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
>> +    unpin_user_pages()
>> +
>> +INCORRECT (uses FOLL_GET calls):
>> +    get_user_pages()
>> +    access the data within the pages
>> +    set_page_dirty_lock()
>> +    put_page()
> 
> Why does this case need to pin?  Why can't it just do ...
> 
> 	get_user_pages()
> 	lock_page(page);
> 	... modify the data ...
> 	set_page_dirty(page);
> 	unlock_page(page);
> 

Yes, it could do that. And that would also make a good additional "correct"
example. Especially for the case of just dealing with a single page,
lock_page() has the benefit of completely fixing the problem *today*,
without waiting for the pin_user_pages*() handling improvements to get
implemented.

And it's also another (probably better) way to fix the vhost.c problem, than
commit 690623e1b496 ("vhost: convert get_user_pages() --> pin_user_pages()").

I'm inclined to leave vhost.c alone for now, unless someone really prefers
it to be changed, but to update the Case 5 documentation with your point
above. Sound about right?


thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA