Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] fuse: convert direct IO paths to use FOLL_PIN

From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
To: Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	"Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@kernel.org>,
	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com>,
	Anna Schumaker <anna@kernel.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Logan Gunthorpe <logang@deltatee.com>,
	linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-nfs@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 7/7] fuse: convert direct IO paths to use FOLL_PIN
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2022 18:33:30 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <06d2caf4-eff1-f537-aa33-c4f0220a9f80@nvidia.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJfpegvdTqdk9rs-yaEp1aqav4=t9qSpQri7gW8zzb+t7+_88A@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/31/22 03:37, Miklos Szeredi wrote:

Hi Miklos,

Thanks for looking at this, I'll accept all of these suggestions.

> On Wed, 31 Aug 2022 at 06:19, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Convert the fuse filesystem to use pin_user_pages_fast() and
>> unpin_user_page(), instead of get_user_pages_fast() and put_page().
>>
>> The user of pin_user_pages_fast() depends upon:
>>
>> 1) CONFIG_BLK_USE_PIN_USER_PAGES_FOR_DIO, and
>>
>> 2) User-space-backed pages or ITER_BVEC pages.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/fuse/dev.c    | 11 +++++++++--
>>  fs/fuse/file.c   | 32 +++++++++++++++++++++-----------
>>  fs/fuse/fuse_i.h |  1 +
>>  3 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/dev.c b/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> index 51897427a534..5de98a7a45b1 100644
>> --- a/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/dev.c
>> @@ -675,7 +675,12 @@ static void fuse_copy_finish(struct fuse_copy_state *cs)
>>                         flush_dcache_page(cs->pg);
>>                         set_page_dirty_lock(cs->pg);
>>                 }
>> -               put_page(cs->pg);
>> +               if (!cs->pipebufs &&
>> +                   (user_backed_iter(cs->iter) || iov_iter_is_bvec(cs->iter)))
>> +                       dio_w_unpin_user_page(cs->pg);
>> +
>> +               else
>> +                       put_page(cs->pg);
> 
> Why not move the logic into a helper and pass a "bool pinned" argument?

OK, will do. 

It's not yet clear from the discussion in the other thread with Jan and Al [1],
if I'll end up keeping this check:

    user_backed_iter(cs->iter) || iov_iter_is_bvec(cs->iter)

...but if it stays, then the helper is a good idea.

> 
>>         }
>>         cs->pg = NULL;
>>  }
>> @@ -730,7 +735,9 @@ static int fuse_copy_fill(struct fuse_copy_state *cs)
>>                 }
>>         } else {
>>                 size_t off;
>> -               err = iov_iter_get_pages2(cs->iter, &page, PAGE_SIZE, 1, &off);
>> +
>> +               err = dio_w_iov_iter_pin_pages(cs->iter, &page, PAGE_SIZE, 1,
>> +                                              &off);
>>                 if (err < 0)
>>                         return err;
>>                 BUG_ON(!err);
>> diff --git a/fs/fuse/file.c b/fs/fuse/file.c
>> index 1a3afd469e3a..01da38928d0b 100644
>> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
>> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
>> @@ -625,14 +625,19 @@ void fuse_read_args_fill(struct fuse_io_args *ia, struct file *file, loff_t pos,
>>  }
>>
>>  static void fuse_release_user_pages(struct fuse_args_pages *ap,
>> -                                   bool should_dirty)
>> +                                   bool should_dirty, bool is_user_or_bvec)
>>  {
>>         unsigned int i;
>>
>> -       for (i = 0; i < ap->num_pages; i++) {
>> -               if (should_dirty)
>> -                       set_page_dirty_lock(ap->pages[i]);
>> -               put_page(ap->pages[i]);
>> +       if (is_user_or_bvec) {
>> +               dio_w_unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock(ap->pages, ap->num_pages,
>> +                                                 should_dirty);
>> +       } else {
>> +               for (i = 0; i < ap->num_pages; i++) {
>> +                       if (should_dirty)
>> +                               set_page_dirty_lock(ap->pages[i]);
>> +                       put_page(ap->pages[i]);
>> +               }
> 
> Same here.

Yes. Definitely belongs in a helper function. I was thinking, "don't
go that far, because the code will eventually get deleted anyway", but
you are right. :)

> 
>>         }
>>  }
>>
>> @@ -733,7 +738,7 @@ static void fuse_aio_complete_req(struct fuse_mount *fm, struct fuse_args *args,
>>         struct fuse_io_priv *io = ia->io;
>>         ssize_t pos = -1;
>>
>> -       fuse_release_user_pages(&ia->ap, io->should_dirty);
>> +       fuse_release_user_pages(&ia->ap, io->should_dirty, io->is_user_or_bvec);
>>
>>         if (err) {
>>                 /* Nothing */
>> @@ -1414,10 +1419,10 @@ static int fuse_get_user_pages(struct fuse_args_pages *ap, struct iov_iter *ii,
>>         while (nbytes < *nbytesp && ap->num_pages < max_pages) {
>>                 unsigned npages;
>>                 size_t start;
>> -               ret = iov_iter_get_pages2(ii, &ap->pages[ap->num_pages],
>> -                                       *nbytesp - nbytes,
>> -                                       max_pages - ap->num_pages,
>> -                                       &start);
>> +               ret = dio_w_iov_iter_pin_pages(ii, &ap->pages[ap->num_pages],
>> +                                              *nbytesp - nbytes,
>> +                                              max_pages - ap->num_pages,
>> +                                              &start);
>>                 if (ret < 0)
>>                         break;
>>
>> @@ -1483,6 +1488,10 @@ ssize_t fuse_direct_io(struct fuse_io_priv *io, struct iov_iter *iter,
>>                 fl_owner_t owner = current->files;
>>                 size_t nbytes = min(count, nmax);
>>
>> +               /* For use in fuse_release_user_pages(): */
>> +               io->is_user_or_bvec = user_backed_iter(iter) ||
>> +                                     iov_iter_is_bvec(iter);
>> +
> 
> How about io->is_pinned?  And a iov_iter_is_pinned() helper?

Agreed, is_pinned is a better name, and the helper (if we end up needing
that logic) also sounds good.

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220831094349.boln4jjajkdtykx3@quack3

thanks,

-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA