[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMQ32RRJlW/aDYAE@x1n>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 17:49:13 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
liubo <liubo254@...wei.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] smaps / mm/gup: fix gup_can_follow_protnone
fallout
Hello, John,
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 02:32:12PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 7/28/23 14:20, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 11:02:46PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Can we get a simple revert in first (without that FOLL_FORCE special casing
> > > and ideally with a better name) to handle stable backports, and I'll
> > > follow-up with more documentation and letting GUP callers pass in that flag
> > > instead?
> > >
> > > That would help a lot. Then we also have more time to let that "move it to
> > > GUP callers" mature a bit in -next, to see if we find any surprises?
> >
> > As I raised my concern over the other thread, I still worry numa users can
> > be affected by this change. After all, numa isn't so uncommon to me, at
> > least fedora / rhel as CONFIG_NUMA_BALANCING_DEFAULT_ENABLED=y. I highly
> > suspect that's also true to major distros. Meanwhile all kernel modules
> > use gup..
> >
> > I'd say we can go ahead and try if we want, but I really don't know why
> > that helps in any form to move it to the callers.. with the risk of
> > breaking someone.
>
> It's worth the trouble, in order to clear up this historical mess. It's
> helping *future* callers of the API, and future maintenance efforts. Yes
> there is some risk, but it seems very manageable.
>
> The story of how FOLL_NUMA and FOLL_FORCE became entangled was enlightening,
> by the way, and now that I've read it I don't want to go back. :)
Yeah I fully agree we should hopefully remove the NUMA / FORCE
tangling.. even if we want to revert back to the FOLL_NUMA flag we may want
to not revive that specific part. I had a feeling that we're all on the
same page there.
It's more about the further step to make FOLL_NUMA opt-in for GUP.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists