[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <689058d5-618b-d487-c168-5e8d3733321d@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2023 12:00:16 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
CC: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
"Jan Kara" <jack@...e.cz>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v9 7/8] block: Convert bio_iov_iter_get_pages to use
iov_iter_extract_pages
On 1/24/23 09:01, David Howells wrote:
> This will pin pages or leave them unaltered rather than getting a ref on
> them as appropriate to the iterator.
>
> The pages need to be pinned for DIO rather than having refs taken on them to
> prevent VM copy-on-write from malfunctioning during a concurrent fork() (the
> result of the I/O could otherwise end up being affected by/visible to the
> child process).
>
> Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
> cc: Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
> cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
> cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
> cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
> cc: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>
> cc: linux-block@...r.kernel.org
> ---
>
> Notes:
> ver #8)
> - Split the patch up a bit [hch].
> - We should only be using pinned/non-pinned pages and not ref'd pages,
> so adjust the comments appropriately.
>
> ver #7)
> - Don't treat BIO_PAGE_REFFED/PINNED as being the same as FOLL_GET/PIN.
>
> ver #5)
> - Transcribe the FOLL_* flags returned by iov_iter_extract_pages() to
> BIO_* flags and got rid of bi_cleanup_mode.
> - Replaced BIO_NO_PAGE_REF to BIO_PAGE_REFFED in the preceding patch.
>
> block/bio.c | 22 +++++++++++-----------
> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
> index fc45aaa97696..936301519e6c 100644
> --- a/block/bio.c
> +++ b/block/bio.c
> @@ -1212,7 +1212,7 @@ static int bio_iov_add_page(struct bio *bio, struct page *page,
> }
>
> if (same_page)
> - put_page(page);
> + bio_release_page(bio, page);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1226,7 +1226,7 @@ static int bio_iov_add_zone_append_page(struct bio *bio, struct page *page,
> queue_max_zone_append_sectors(q), &same_page) != len)
> return -EINVAL;
> if (same_page)
> - put_page(page);
> + bio_release_page(bio, page);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -1237,10 +1237,10 @@ static int bio_iov_add_zone_append_page(struct bio *bio, struct page *page,
> * @bio: bio to add pages to
> * @iter: iov iterator describing the region to be mapped
> *
> - * Pins pages from *iter and appends them to @bio's bvec array. The
> - * pages will have to be released using put_page() when done.
> - * For multi-segment *iter, this function only adds pages from the
> - * next non-empty segment of the iov iterator.
> + * Extracts pages from *iter and appends them to @bio's bvec array. The pages
> + * will have to be cleaned up in the way indicated by the BIO_PAGE_PINNED flag.
> + * For a multi-segment *iter, this function only adds pages from the next
> + * non-empty segment of the iov iterator.
> */
> static int __bio_iov_iter_get_pages(struct bio *bio, struct iov_iter *iter)
> {
> @@ -1272,9 +1272,9 @@ static int __bio_iov_iter_get_pages(struct bio *bio, struct iov_iter *iter)
> * result to ensure the bio's total size is correct. The remainder of
> * the iov data will be picked up in the next bio iteration.
> */
> - size = iov_iter_get_pages(iter, pages,
> - UINT_MAX - bio->bi_iter.bi_size,
> - nr_pages, &offset, extraction_flags);
> + size = iov_iter_extract_pages(iter, &pages,
> + UINT_MAX - bio->bi_iter.bi_size,
> + nr_pages, extraction_flags, &offset);
A quite minor point: it seems like the last two args got reversed more
or less by accident. It's not worth re-spinning or anything, but it
seems better to leave the order the same between these two routines.
Either way, though,
Reviewed-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
> if (unlikely(size <= 0))
> return size ? size : -EFAULT;
>
> @@ -1307,7 +1307,7 @@ static int __bio_iov_iter_get_pages(struct bio *bio, struct iov_iter *iter)
> iov_iter_revert(iter, left);
> out:
> while (i < nr_pages)
> - put_page(pages[i++]);
> + bio_release_page(bio, pages[i++]);
>
> return ret;
> }
> @@ -1342,7 +1342,7 @@ int bio_iov_iter_get_pages(struct bio *bio, struct iov_iter *iter)
> return 0;
> }
>
> - bio_set_flag(bio, BIO_PAGE_REFFED);
> + bio_set_cleanup_mode(bio, iter);
> do {
> ret = __bio_iov_iter_get_pages(bio, iter);
> } while (!ret && iov_iter_count(iter) && !bio_full(bio, 0));
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists