Re: [PATCH v5 02/13] mm: Introduce memfile_notifier
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Date: 2022-03-29 18:45:29
Also in:
kvm, linux-fsdevel, linux-mm, lkml, qemu-devel
On Thu, Mar 10, 2022, Chao Peng wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
diff --git a/mm/Makefile b/mm/Makefile index 70d4309c9ce3..f628256dce0d 100644 +void memfile_notifier_invalidate(struct memfile_notifier_list *list, + pgoff_t start, pgoff_t end) +{ + struct memfile_notifier *notifier; + int id; + + id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu); + list_for_each_entry_srcu(notifier, &list->head, list, + srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) { + if (notifier->ops && notifier->ops->invalidate)
Any reason notifier->ops isn't mandatory?
+ notifier->ops->invalidate(notifier, start, end);
+ }
+ srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
+}
+
+void memfile_notifier_fallocate(struct memfile_notifier_list *list,
+ pgoff_t start, pgoff_t end)
+{
+ struct memfile_notifier *notifier;
+ int id;
+
+ id = srcu_read_lock(&srcu);
+ list_for_each_entry_srcu(notifier, &list->head, list,
+ srcu_read_lock_held(&srcu)) {
+ if (notifier->ops && notifier->ops->fallocate)
+ notifier->ops->fallocate(notifier, start, end);
+ }
+ srcu_read_unlock(&srcu, id);
+}
+
+void memfile_register_backing_store(struct memfile_backing_store *bs)
+{
+ BUG_ON(!bs || !bs->get_notifier_list);
+
+ list_add_tail(&bs->list, &backing_store_list);
+}
+
+void memfile_unregister_backing_store(struct memfile_backing_store *bs)
+{
+ list_del(&bs->list);Allowing unregistration of a backing store is broken. Using the _safe() variant is not sufficient to guard against concurrent modification. I don't see any reason to support this out of the gate, the only reason to support unregistering a backing store is if the backing store is implemented as a module, and AFAIK none of the backing stores we plan on supporting initially support being built as a module. These aren't exported, so it's not like that's even possible. Registration would also be broken if modules are allowed, I'm pretty sure module init doesn't run under a global lock. We can always add this complexity if it's needed in the future, but for now the easiest thing would be to tag memfile_register_backing_store() with __init and make backing_store_list __ro_after_init.
+}
+
+static int memfile_get_notifier_info(struct inode *inode,
+ struct memfile_notifier_list **list,
+ struct memfile_pfn_ops **ops)
+{
+ struct memfile_backing_store *bs, *iter;
+ struct memfile_notifier_list *tmp;
+
+ list_for_each_entry_safe(bs, iter, &backing_store_list, list) {
+ tmp = bs->get_notifier_list(inode);
+ if (tmp) {
+ *list = tmp;
+ if (ops)
+ *ops = &bs->pfn_ops;
+ return 0;
+ }
+ }
+ return -EOPNOTSUPP;
+}
+
+int memfile_register_notifier(struct inode *inode,Taking an inode is a bit odd from a user perspective. Any reason not to take a "struct file *" and get the inode here? That would give callers a hint that they need to hold a reference to the file for the lifetime of the registration.
+ struct memfile_notifier *notifier,
+ struct memfile_pfn_ops **pfn_ops)
+{
+ struct memfile_notifier_list *list;
+ int ret;
+
+ if (!inode || !notifier | !pfn_ops)Bitwise | instead of logical ||. But IMO taking in a pfn_ops pointer is silly. More below.
+ return -EINVAL;
+
+ ret = memfile_get_notifier_info(inode, &list, pfn_ops);
+ if (ret)
+ return ret;
+
+ spin_lock(&list->lock);
+ list_add_rcu(¬ifier->list, &list->head);
+ spin_unlock(&list->lock);
+
+ return 0;
+}
+EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(memfile_register_notifier);
+
+void memfile_unregister_notifier(struct inode *inode,
+ struct memfile_notifier *notifier)
+{
+ struct memfile_notifier_list *list;
+
+ if (!inode || !notifier)
+ return;
+
+ BUG_ON(memfile_get_notifier_info(inode, &list, NULL));
Eww. Rather than force the caller to provide the inode/file and the notifier,
what about grabbing the backing store itself in the notifier?
struct memfile_notifier {
struct list_head list;
struct memfile_notifier_ops *ops;
struct memfile_backing_store *bs;
};
That also helps avoid confusing between "ops" and "pfn_ops". IMO, exposing
memfile_backing_store to the caller isn't a big deal, and is preferable to having
to rewalk multiple lists just to delete a notifier.
Then this can become:
void memfile_unregister_notifier(struct memfile_notifier *notifier)
{
spin_lock(¬ifier->bs->list->lock);
list_del_rcu(¬ifier->list);
spin_unlock(¬ifier->bs->list->lock);
synchronize_srcu(&srcu);
}
and registration can be:
int memfile_register_notifier(const struct file *file,
struct memfile_notifier *notifier)
{
struct memfile_notifier_list *list;
struct memfile_backing_store *bs;
int ret;
if (!file || !notifier)
return -EINVAL;
list_for_each_entry(bs, &backing_store_list, list) {
list = bs->get_notifier_list(file_inode(file));
if (list) {
notifier->bs = bs;
spin_lock(&list->lock);
list_add_rcu(¬ifier->list, &list->head);
spin_unlock(&list->lock);
return 0;
}
}
return -EOPNOTSUPP;
}