[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190416233402.GC22465@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2019 19:34:03 -0400
From: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>
To: Boaz Harrosh <openosd@...il.com>
Cc: Boaz Harrosh <boaz@...xistor.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@...il.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@...e.de>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Steve French <sfrench@...ba.org>, linux-cifs@...r.kernel.org,
Yan Zheng <zyan@...hat.com>, Sage Weil <sage@...hat.com>,
Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>,
Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, ceph-devel@...r.kernel.org,
Eric Van Hensbergen <ericvh@...il.com>,
Latchesar Ionkov <lucho@...kov.net>,
Mike Marshall <hubcap@...ibond.com>,
Martin Brandenburg <martin@...ibond.com>,
Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@...ewreck.org>,
v9fs-developer@...ts.sourceforge.net, Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>,
linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
Ernesto A. Fernández
<ernesto.mnd.fernandez@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 00/15] Keep track of GUPed pages in fs and block
On Wed, Apr 17, 2019 at 01:09:22AM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 16/04/19 22:57, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> <>
> >
> > A very long thread on this:
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/12/3/1128
> >
> > especialy all the reply to this first one
> >
> > There is also:
> >
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/3/26/1395
> > https://lwn.net/Articles/753027/
> >
>
> OK I have re-read this patchset and a little bit of the threads above (not all)
>
> As I understand the long term plan is to keep two separate ref-counts one
> for GUP-ref and one for the regular page-state/ownership ref.
> Currently looking at page-ref we do not know if we have a GUP currently held.
> With the new plan we can (Still not sure what's the full plan with this new info)
>
> But if you make it such as the first GUP-ref also takes a page_ref and the
> last GUp-dec also does put_page. Then the all of these becomes a matter of
> matching every call to get_user_pages or iov_iter_get_pages() with a new
> put_user_pages or iov_iter_put_pages().
So sorry forgot to answer that part. So idea is to do:
GUP() {
...
- page_ref_inc(page);
+ page_ref_add(page, GUP_BIAS);
...
}
with GUP_BIAS = 1024 or something big but not too big to avoid risk of
overflow by GUP. Then put_user_page() just ref_sub instead of ref_dec
the same amount.
We can have false GUP positive if a page is map so many time or reference
so many time that its refcount reach the GUP_BIAS value but considering
such page as GUPed should not be too harmful (not more harmful than what
we do with GUPed page).
So we want to call put_user_page() for GUPed page and only GUPed page so
that we keep the reference count properly balance.
Cheers,
Jérôme
Powered by blists - more mailing lists