[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20161026093913.GA12814@lucifer>
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 10:39:13 +0100
From: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-mm@...ck.org, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
kvm@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 11:15:43AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Wed 26-10-16 00:46:31, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> > The holdout for unexporting __get_user_pages_unlocked() is its invocation in
> > mm/process_vm_access.c: process_vm_rw_single_vec(), as this definitely _does_
> > seem to invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour which get_user_pages_remote() will not
> > trigger if we were to replace it with the latter.
>
> I am not sure I understand. Prior to 1e9877902dc7e this used
> get_user_pages_unlocked. What prevents us from reintroducing it with
> FOLL_REMOVE which was meant to be added by the above commit?
>
> Or am I missing your point?
The issue isn't the flags being passed, rather that in this case:
a. Replacing __get_user_pages_unlocked() with get_user_pages_unlocked() won't
work as the latter assumes task = current and mm = current->mm but
process_vm_rw_single_vec() needs to pass different task, mm.
b. Moving to get_user_pages_remote() _will_ allow us to pass different task, mm
but won't however match existing behaviour precisely, since
__get_user_pages_unlocked() acquires mmap_sem then passes a pointer to a
local 'locked' variable to __get_user_pages_locked() which allows
VM_FAULT_RETRY to trigger.
The main issue I had here was not being sure whether we care about the
VM_FAULT_RETRY functionality being used here or not, if we don't care then we
can just move to get_user_pages_remote(), otherwise perhaps this should be left
alone or maybe we need to consider adjusting the API to allow for remote access
with VM_FAULT_RETRY functionality.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists