[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yd2NraXh3ka8PdrQ@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 14:01:17 +0000
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>,
Joao Martins <joao.m.martins@...cle.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
nvdimm@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: Phyr Starter
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 12:17:18AM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> Zooming in on the pinning aspect for a moment: last time I attempted to
> convert O_DIRECT callers from gup to pup, I recall wanting very much to
> record, in each bio_vec, whether these pages were acquired via FOLL_PIN,
> or some non-FOLL_PIN method. Because at the end of the IO, it is not
> easy to disentangle which pages require put_page() and which require
> unpin_user_page*().
>
> And changing the bio_vec for *that* purpose was not really acceptable.
>
> But now that you're looking to change it in a big way (and with some
> spare bits avaiable...oohh!), maybe I can go that direction after all.
>
> Or, are you looking at a design in which any phyr is implicitly FOLL_PIN'd
> if it exists at all?
That. I think there's still good reasons to keep a single-page (or
maybe dual-page) GUP around, but no reason to mix it with ranges.
> Or any other thoughts in this area are very welcome.
That's there's no support for unpinning part of a range. You pin it,
do the IO, unpin it. That simplifies the accounting.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists