[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <494478b6-9a8c-5271-fc9f-fd758af850c0@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2020 12:47:08 -0700
From: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Cc: Kai Mäkisara <Kai.Makisara@...umbus.fi>,
"James E . J . Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Martin K . Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scsi: st: convert convert get_user_pages() -->
pin_user_pages()
On 2020-05-18 21:55, John Hubbard wrote:
> This code was using get_user_pages*(), in a "Case 2" scenario
> (DMA/RDMA), using the categorization from [1]. That means that it's
> time to convert the get_user_pages*() + put_page() calls to
> pin_user_pages*() + unpin_user_pages() calls.
>
> There is some helpful background in [2]: basically, this is a small
> part of fixing a long-standing disconnect between pinning pages, and
> file systems' use of those pages.
>
> Note that this effectively changes the code's behavior as well: it now
> ultimately calls set_page_dirty_lock(), instead of SetPageDirty().This
> is probably more accurate.
>
> As Christoph Hellwig put it, "set_page_dirty() is only safe if we are
> dealing with a file backed page where we have reference on the inode it
> hangs off." [3]
>
> Also, this deletes one of the two FIXME comments (about refcounting),
> because there is nothing wrong with the refcounting at this point.
>
> [1] Documentation/core-api/pin_user_pages.rst
>
> [2] "Explicit pinning of user-space pages":
> https://lwn.net/Articles/807108/
>
> [3] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190723153640.GB720@lst.de
Kai, why is the st driver calling get_user_pages_fast() directly instead
of calling blk_rq_map_user()? blk_rq_map_user() is already used in
st_scsi_execute(). I think that the blk_rq_map_user() implementation is
also based on get_user_pages_fast(). See also iov_iter_get_pages_alloc()
in lib/iov_iter.c.
John, why are the get_user_pages_fast() calls in the st driver modified
but not the blk_rq_map_user() call? Are you sure that the modified code
is a "case 2" scenario and not a "case 1" scenario?
Thanks,
Bart.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists