On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 08:16:57PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2025 at 03:15:19PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> > > > > > + if (phys_len >= PMD_SIZE) {
> > > > > > + ret = mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned(file, addr, len, phys_addr,
> > > > > > + flags, PMD_SIZE, 0);
> > > > > > + if (ret)
> > > > > > + return ret;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > Hurm, we have contiguous pages now, so PMD_SIZE is not so great, eg on
> > > > > 4k ARM with we can have a 16*2M=32MB contiguity, and 16k ARM uses
> > > > > contiguity to get a 32*16k=1GB option.
> > > > >
> > > > > Forcing to only align to the PMD or PUD seems suboptimal..
> > > >
> > > > Right, however the cont-pte / cont-pmd are still not supported in huge
> > > > pfnmaps in general? It'll definitely be nice if someone could look at that
> > > > from ARM perspective, then provide support of both in one shot.
> > >
> > > Maybe leave behind a comment about this. I've been poking around if
> > > somone would do the ARM PFNMAP support but can't report any commitment.
> >
> > I didn't know what's the best part to take a note for the whole pfnmap
> > effort, but I added a note into the commit message on this patch:
> >
> > Note 2: Currently continuous pgtable entries (for example, cont-pte) is not
> > yet supported for huge pfnmaps in general. It also is not considered in
> > this patch so far. Separate work will be needed to enable continuous
> > pgtable entries on archs that support it.
> >
> > >
> > > > > > +fallback:
> > > > > > + return mm_get_unmapped_area(current->mm, file, addr, len, pgoff, flags);
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not put this into mm_get_unmapped_area_vmflags() and get rid of
> > > > > thp_get_unmapped_area_vmflags() too?
> > > > >
> > > > > Is there any reason the caller should have to do a retry?
> > > >
> > > > We would still need thp_get_unmapped_area_vmflags() because that encodes
> > > > PMD_SIZE for THPs; we need the flexibility of providing any size alignment
> > > > as a generic helper.
> > >
> > > There is only one caller for thp_get_unmapped_area_vmflags(), just
> > > open code PMD_SIZE there and thin this whole thing out. It reads
> > > better like that anyhow:
> > >
> > > } else if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_TRANSPARENT_HUGEPAGE) && !file
> > > && !addr /* no hint */
> > > && IS_ALIGNED(len, PMD_SIZE)) {
> > > /* Ensures that larger anonymous mappings are THP aligned. */
> > > addr = mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned(file, 0, len, pgoff,
> > > flags, vm_flags, PMD_SIZE);
> > >
> > > > That was ok, however that loses some flexibility when the caller wants to
> > > > try with different alignments, exactly like above: currently, it was trying
> > > > to do a first attempt of PUD mapping then fallback to PMD if that fails.
> > >
> > > Oh, that's a good point, I didn't notice that subtle bit.
> > >
> > > But then maybe that is showing the API is just wrong and the core code
> > > should be trying to find the best alignment not the caller. Like we
> > > can have those PUD/PMD size ifdefs inside the mm instead of in VFIO?
> > >
> > > VFIO would just pass the BAR size, implying the best alignment, and
> > > the core implementation will try to get the largest VMA alignment that
> > > snaps to an arch supported page contiguity, testing each of the arches
> > > page size possibilities in turn.
> > >
> > > That sounds like a much better API than pushing this into drivers??
> >
> > Yes it would be nice if the core mm can evolve to make supporting such
> > easier. Though the question is how to pass information over to core mm.
>
> I was just thinking something simple, change how your new
> mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned() works so that the caller is expected to
> pass in the size of the biggest folio/pfn page in as
> align.
>
> The mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned() returns a vm address that
> will result in large mappings.
>
> pgoff works the same way, the assumption is the biggest folio is at
> pgoff 0 and followed by another biggest folio so the pgoff logic tries
> to make the second folio map fully.
>
> ie what a hugetlb fd or thp memfd would like.
>
> Then you still hook the file operations and still figure out what BAR
> and so on to call mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned() with the correct
> aligned parameter.
>
> mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned() goes through the supported page sizes
> of the arch and selects the best one for the indicated biggest folio
>
> If we were happy writing this in vfio then it can work just as well in
> the core mm side.
So far, the new vfio_pci_core_get_unmapped_area() almost does VFIO's own
stuff, except that it does retry with different sizes.
Can I understand it as a suggestion to pass in a bitmask into the core mm
API (e.g. keep the name of mm_get_unmapped_area_aligned()), instead of a
constant "align", so that core mm would try to allocate from the largest
size to smaller until it finds some working VA to use?
>
> > It's similar to many other use cases of get_unmapped_area() users. For
> > example, see v4l2_m2m_get_unmapped_area() which has similar treatment on at
> > least knowing which part of the file was being mapped:
> >
> > if (offset < DST_QUEUE_OFF_BASE) {
> > vq = v4l2_m2m_get_src_vq(fh->m2m_ctx);
> > } else {
> > vq = v4l2_m2m_get_dst_vq(fh->m2m_ctx);
> > pgoff -= (DST_QUEUE_OFF_BASE >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> > }
>
> Careful thats only use for nommu :)
My fault, please ignore it.. :)
I'm also surprised it is even available for !MMU.. but I decided to not dig
anymore today on that.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
