[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZEB3y0V2GSDcUMc2@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2023 20:22:51 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@...il.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@...il.com>,
io-uring@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 4/6] io_uring: rsrc: avoid use of vmas parameter in
pin_user_pages()
On Wed, Apr 19, 2023 at 07:45:06PM +0100, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> For example, imagine if a user (yes it'd be weird) mlock'd some pages in a
> buffer and not others, then we'd break their use case. Also (perhaps?) more
> feasibly, a user might mix hugetlb and anon pages. So I think that'd be too
> restrictive here.
Yeah, I agree we should not add a broad single-vma restriction to
GUP. It turns any split of a VMA into a potentially uABI breaking
change and we just don't need that headache in the mm..
> I do like the idea of a FOLL_SINGLE_VMA for other use cases though, the
> majority of which want one and one page only. Perhaps worth taking the
> helper added in this series (get_user_page_vma_remote() from [1]) and
> replacing it with an a full GUP function which has an interface explicitly
> for this common single page/vma case.
Like I showed in another thread a function signature that can only do
one page and also returns the VMA would force it to be used properly
and we don't need a FOLL flag.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists