[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <02fa935c-3469-b766-b691-5660084b60b9@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2019 13:10:47 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Björn Töpel <bjorn.topel@...el.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Magnus Karlsson <magnus.karlsson@...el.com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.com>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@...cle.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@...e.cz>, <bpf@...r.kernel.org>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-media@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
<linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-mm@...ck.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 00/23] mm/gup: track dma-pinned pages: FOLL_PIN,
FOLL_LONGTERM
On 11/12/19 12:38 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 04:06:37PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> The cover letter is long, so the more important stuff is first:
>>
>> * Jason, if you or someone could look at the the VFIO cleanup (patch 8)
>> and conversion to FOLL_PIN (patch 18), to make sure it's use of
>> remote and longterm gup matches what we discussed during the review
>> of v2, I'd appreciate it.
>>
>> * Also for Jason and IB: as noted below, in patch 11, I am (too?) boldly
>> converting from put_user_pages() to release_pages().
>
> Why are we doing this? I think things got confused here someplace, as
Because:
a) These need put_page() calls, and
b) there is no put_pages() call, but there is a release_pages() call that
is, arguably, what put_pages() would be.
> the comment still says:
>
> /**
> * put_user_page() - release a gup-pinned page
> * @page: pointer to page to be released
> *
> * Pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*() must be released via
> * either put_user_page(), or one of the put_user_pages*() routines
> * below.
Ohhh, I missed those comments. They need to all be changed over to
say "pages that were pinned via pin_user_pages*() or
pin_longterm_pages*() must be released via put_user_page*()."
The get_user_pages*() pages must still be released via put_page.
The churn is due to a fairly significant change in strategy, whis
is: instead of changing all get_user_pages*() sites to call
put_user_page(), change selected sites to call pin_user_pages*() or
pin_longterm_pages*(), plus put_user_page().
That allows incrementally converting the kernel over to using the
new pin APIs, without taking on the huge risk of a big one-shot
conversion.
So, I've ended up with one place that actually needs to get reverted
back to get_user_pages(), and that's the IB ODP code.
>
> I feel like if put_user_pages() is not the correct way to undo
> get_user_pages() then it needs to be deleted.
>
Yes, you're right. I'll fix the put_user_page comments() as described.
thanks,
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists