[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 11:16:25 +0000
From: Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org,
ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org, lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Chris Wilson <chris@...is-wilson.co.uk>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] iov_iter: allow iov_iter_get_pages_alloc to
allocate more pages per call
On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 02:56:51AM -0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I really wonder if this is the right approach. Most of the users of
> > iov_iter_get_pages()/iov_iter_get_pages_alloc() look like they want
> > something like
> > iov_iter_for_each_page(iter, size, f, data)
> > with int (*f)(struct page *page, size_t from, size_t size, void *data)
> > passed as callback. Not everything fits that model, but there's a whole
> > lot of things that do.
>
> I was planning to do that, mostly because of the iomap dio code that
> would not only get a lot cleaner with this, but also support multi-page
> bvecs that we hope to have in the block layer soon. The issue with it
> is that we need to touch all the arch get_user_pages_fast
> implementations, so it's going to be a relatively invasive change that I
> didn't want to fix with just introducing the new direct I/O code.
I'm not sure we need to touch any get_user_pages_fast() at all; let it
fill a medium-sized array and use that as a buffer. In particular,
I *really* don't like the idea of having the callbacks done in an
inconsistent locking environment - sometimes under ->mmap_sem, sometimes
not.
I played with "let it fill bio_vec array", but it doesn't really fit the
users; variant with callbacks is cleaner, IMO.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists