Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm/gup: introduce vaddr_pin_pages_remote()

[Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>]

On 8/15/19 3:35 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>> 
>> So when the GUP user uses MMU notifiers to stop writing to pages whenever
>> they are writeprotected with page_mkclean(), they don't really need page
>> pin - their access is then fully equivalent to any other mmap userspace
>> access and filesystem knows how to deal with those. I forgot out this case
>> when I wrote the above sentence.
>> 
>> So to sum up there are three cases:
>> 1) DIO case - GUP references to pages serving as DIO buffers are needed for
>>    relatively short time, no special synchronization with page_mkclean() or
>>    munmap() => needs FOLL_PIN
>> 2) RDMA case - GUP references to pages serving as DMA buffers needed for a
>>    long time, no special synchronization with page_mkclean() or munmap()
>>    => needs FOLL_PIN | FOLL_LONGTERM
>>    This case has also a special case when the pages are actually DAX. Then
>>    the caller additionally needs file lease and additional file_pin
>>    structure is used for tracking this usage.
>> 3) ODP case - GUP references to pages serving as DMA buffers, MMU notifiers
>>    used to synchronize with page_mkclean() and munmap() => normal page
>>    references are fine.

IMHO the munlock lesson told us about another one, that's in the end equivalent
to 3)

4) pinning for struct page manipulation only => normal page references are fine

> I want to add that I'd like to convert users in cases 1) and 2) from using
> GUP to using differently named function. Users in case 3) can stay as they
> are for now although ultimately I'd like to denote such use cases in a
> special way as well...

So after 1/2/3 is renamed/specially denoted, only 4) keeps the current interface?

> 								Honza
>