All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: ira.weiny@intel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/19] fs/locks: Add Exclusive flag to user Layout lease
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:15:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fde2959db776616008fc5d31df700f5d7d899433.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190809225833.6657-3-ira.weiny@intel.com>

On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 15:58 -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> 
> Add an exclusive lease flag which indicates that the layout mechanism
> can not be broken.
> 
> Exclusive layout leases allow the file system to know that pages may be
> GUP pined and that attempts to change the layout, ie truncate, should be
> failed.
> 
> A process which attempts to break it's own exclusive lease gets an
> EDEADLOCK return to help determine that this is likely a programming bug
> vs someone else holding a resource.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c                       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  include/linux/fs.h               |  1 +
>  include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index ad17c6ffca06..0c7359cdab92 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -626,6 +626,8 @@ static int lease_init(struct file *filp, long type, unsigned int flags,
>  	fl->fl_flags = FL_LEASE;
>  	if (flags & FL_LAYOUT)
>  		fl->fl_flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
> +	if (flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE)
> +		fl->fl_flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
>  	fl->fl_start = 0;
>  	fl->fl_end = OFFSET_MAX;
>  	fl->fl_ops = NULL;
> @@ -1619,6 +1621,14 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(fl, tmp, &ctx->flc_lease, fl_list) {
>  		if (!leases_conflict(fl, new_fl))
>  			continue;
> +		if (fl->fl_flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE) {
> +			error = -ETXTBSY;
> +			if (new_fl->fl_pid == fl->fl_pid) {
> +				error = -EDEADLOCK;
> +				goto out;
> +			}
> +			continue;
> +		}
>  		if (want_write) {
>  			if (fl->fl_flags & FL_UNLOCK_PENDING)
>  				continue;
> @@ -1634,6 +1644,13 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>  			locks_delete_lock_ctx(fl, &dispose);
>  	}
>  
> +	/* We differentiate between -EDEADLOCK and -ETXTBSY so the above loop
> +	 * continues with -ETXTBSY looking for a potential deadlock instead.
> +	 * If deadlock is not found go ahead and return -ETXTBSY.
> +	 */
> +	if (error == -ETXTBSY)
> +		goto out;
> +
>  	if (list_empty(&ctx->flc_lease))
>  		goto out;
>  
> @@ -2044,9 +2061,11 @@ static int do_fcntl_add_lease(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp, long arg)
>  	 * to revoke the lease in break_layout()  And this is done by using
>  	 * F_WRLCK in the break code.
>  	 */
> -	if (arg == F_LAYOUT) {
> +	if ((arg & F_LAYOUT) == F_LAYOUT) {
> +		if ((arg & F_EXCLUSIVE) == F_EXCLUSIVE)
> +			flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
>  		arg = F_RDLCK;
> -		flags = FL_LAYOUT;
> +		flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
>  	}
>  
>  	fl = lease_alloc(filp, arg, flags);
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index dd60d5be9886..2e41ce547913 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f)
>  #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING	512 /* Lease is being broken */
>  #define FL_OFDLCK	1024	/* lock is "owned" by struct file */
>  #define FL_LAYOUT	2048	/* outstanding pNFS layout or user held pin */
> +#define FL_EXCLUSIVE	4096	/* Layout lease is exclusive */
>  
>  #define FL_CLOSE_POSIX (FL_POSIX | FL_CLOSE)
>  
> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> index baddd54f3031..88b175ceccbc 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
>  
>  #define F_LAYOUT	16      /* layout lease to allow longterm pins such as
>  				   RDMA */
> +#define F_EXCLUSIVE	32      /* layout lease is exclusive */
> +				/* FIXME or shoudl this be F_EXLCK??? */
>  
>  /* operations for bsd flock(), also used by the kernel implementation */
>  #define LOCK_SH		1	/* shared lock */

This interface just seems weird to me. The existing F_*LCK values aren't
really set up to be flags, but are enumerated values (even if there are
some gaps on some arches). For instance, on parisc and sparc:

/* for posix fcntl() and lockf() */
#define F_RDLCK         01
#define F_WRLCK         02
#define F_UNLCK         03

While your new flag values are well above these values, it's still a bit
sketchy to do what you're proposing from a cross-platform interface
standpoint.

I think this would be a lot cleaner if you weren't overloading the
F_SETLEASE command with new flags, and instead added new
F_SETLAYOUT/F_GETLAYOUT cmd values.

You'd then be free to define a new set of "arg" values for use with
layouts, and there's be a clear distinction interface-wise between
setting a layout and a lease.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>

_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: ira.weiny@intel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/19] fs/locks: Add Exclusive flag to user Layout lease
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:15:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fde2959db776616008fc5d31df700f5d7d899433.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190809225833.6657-3-ira.weiny@intel.com>

On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 15:58 -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> 
> Add an exclusive lease flag which indicates that the layout mechanism
> can not be broken.
> 
> Exclusive layout leases allow the file system to know that pages may be
> GUP pined and that attempts to change the layout, ie truncate, should be
> failed.
> 
> A process which attempts to break it's own exclusive lease gets an
> EDEADLOCK return to help determine that this is likely a programming bug
> vs someone else holding a resource.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c                       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  include/linux/fs.h               |  1 +
>  include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index ad17c6ffca06..0c7359cdab92 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -626,6 +626,8 @@ static int lease_init(struct file *filp, long type, unsigned int flags,
>  	fl->fl_flags = FL_LEASE;
>  	if (flags & FL_LAYOUT)
>  		fl->fl_flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
> +	if (flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE)
> +		fl->fl_flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
>  	fl->fl_start = 0;
>  	fl->fl_end = OFFSET_MAX;
>  	fl->fl_ops = NULL;
> @@ -1619,6 +1621,14 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(fl, tmp, &ctx->flc_lease, fl_list) {
>  		if (!leases_conflict(fl, new_fl))
>  			continue;
> +		if (fl->fl_flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE) {
> +			error = -ETXTBSY;
> +			if (new_fl->fl_pid == fl->fl_pid) {
> +				error = -EDEADLOCK;
> +				goto out;
> +			}
> +			continue;
> +		}
>  		if (want_write) {
>  			if (fl->fl_flags & FL_UNLOCK_PENDING)
>  				continue;
> @@ -1634,6 +1644,13 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>  			locks_delete_lock_ctx(fl, &dispose);
>  	}
>  
> +	/* We differentiate between -EDEADLOCK and -ETXTBSY so the above loop
> +	 * continues with -ETXTBSY looking for a potential deadlock instead.
> +	 * If deadlock is not found go ahead and return -ETXTBSY.
> +	 */
> +	if (error == -ETXTBSY)
> +		goto out;
> +
>  	if (list_empty(&ctx->flc_lease))
>  		goto out;
>  
> @@ -2044,9 +2061,11 @@ static int do_fcntl_add_lease(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp, long arg)
>  	 * to revoke the lease in break_layout()  And this is done by using
>  	 * F_WRLCK in the break code.
>  	 */
> -	if (arg == F_LAYOUT) {
> +	if ((arg & F_LAYOUT) == F_LAYOUT) {
> +		if ((arg & F_EXCLUSIVE) == F_EXCLUSIVE)
> +			flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
>  		arg = F_RDLCK;
> -		flags = FL_LAYOUT;
> +		flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
>  	}
>  
>  	fl = lease_alloc(filp, arg, flags);
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index dd60d5be9886..2e41ce547913 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f)
>  #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING	512 /* Lease is being broken */
>  #define FL_OFDLCK	1024	/* lock is "owned" by struct file */
>  #define FL_LAYOUT	2048	/* outstanding pNFS layout or user held pin */
> +#define FL_EXCLUSIVE	4096	/* Layout lease is exclusive */
>  
>  #define FL_CLOSE_POSIX (FL_POSIX | FL_CLOSE)
>  
> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> index baddd54f3031..88b175ceccbc 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
>  
>  #define F_LAYOUT	16      /* layout lease to allow longterm pins such as
>  				   RDMA */
> +#define F_EXCLUSIVE	32      /* layout lease is exclusive */
> +				/* FIXME or shoudl this be F_EXLCK??? */
>  
>  /* operations for bsd flock(), also used by the kernel implementation */
>  #define LOCK_SH		1	/* shared lock */

This interface just seems weird to me. The existing F_*LCK values aren't
really set up to be flags, but are enumerated values (even if there are
some gaps on some arches). For instance, on parisc and sparc:

/* for posix fcntl() and lockf() */
#define F_RDLCK         01
#define F_WRLCK         02
#define F_UNLCK         03

While your new flag values are well above these values, it's still a bit
sketchy to do what you're proposing from a cross-platform interface
standpoint.

I think this would be a lot cleaner if you weren't overloading the
F_SETLEASE command with new flags, and instead added new
F_SETLAYOUT/F_GETLAYOUT cmd values.

You'd then be free to define a new set of "arg" values for use with
layouts, and there's be a clear distinction interface-wise between
setting a layout and a lease.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>


WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>
To: ira.weiny@intel.com, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
	Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
	Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>,
	linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	 linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 02/19] fs/locks: Add Exclusive flag to user Layout lease
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2019 10:15:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <fde2959db776616008fc5d31df700f5d7d899433.camel@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20190809225833.6657-3-ira.weiny@intel.com>

On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 15:58 -0700, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:
> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> 
> Add an exclusive lease flag which indicates that the layout mechanism
> can not be broken.
> 
> Exclusive layout leases allow the file system to know that pages may be
> GUP pined and that attempts to change the layout, ie truncate, should be
> failed.
> 
> A process which attempts to break it's own exclusive lease gets an
> EDEADLOCK return to help determine that this is likely a programming bug
> vs someone else holding a resource.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>
> ---
>  fs/locks.c                       | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
>  include/linux/fs.h               |  1 +
>  include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h |  2 ++
>  3 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index ad17c6ffca06..0c7359cdab92 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -626,6 +626,8 @@ static int lease_init(struct file *filp, long type, unsigned int flags,
>  	fl->fl_flags = FL_LEASE;
>  	if (flags & FL_LAYOUT)
>  		fl->fl_flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
> +	if (flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE)
> +		fl->fl_flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
>  	fl->fl_start = 0;
>  	fl->fl_end = OFFSET_MAX;
>  	fl->fl_ops = NULL;
> @@ -1619,6 +1621,14 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>  	list_for_each_entry_safe(fl, tmp, &ctx->flc_lease, fl_list) {
>  		if (!leases_conflict(fl, new_fl))
>  			continue;
> +		if (fl->fl_flags & FL_EXCLUSIVE) {
> +			error = -ETXTBSY;
> +			if (new_fl->fl_pid == fl->fl_pid) {
> +				error = -EDEADLOCK;
> +				goto out;
> +			}
> +			continue;
> +		}
>  		if (want_write) {
>  			if (fl->fl_flags & FL_UNLOCK_PENDING)
>  				continue;
> @@ -1634,6 +1644,13 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>  			locks_delete_lock_ctx(fl, &dispose);
>  	}
>  
> +	/* We differentiate between -EDEADLOCK and -ETXTBSY so the above loop
> +	 * continues with -ETXTBSY looking for a potential deadlock instead.
> +	 * If deadlock is not found go ahead and return -ETXTBSY.
> +	 */
> +	if (error == -ETXTBSY)
> +		goto out;
> +
>  	if (list_empty(&ctx->flc_lease))
>  		goto out;
>  
> @@ -2044,9 +2061,11 @@ static int do_fcntl_add_lease(unsigned int fd, struct file *filp, long arg)
>  	 * to revoke the lease in break_layout()  And this is done by using
>  	 * F_WRLCK in the break code.
>  	 */
> -	if (arg == F_LAYOUT) {
> +	if ((arg & F_LAYOUT) == F_LAYOUT) {
> +		if ((arg & F_EXCLUSIVE) == F_EXCLUSIVE)
> +			flags |= FL_EXCLUSIVE;
>  		arg = F_RDLCK;
> -		flags = FL_LAYOUT;
> +		flags |= FL_LAYOUT;
>  	}
>  
>  	fl = lease_alloc(filp, arg, flags);
> diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
> index dd60d5be9886..2e41ce547913 100644
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -1005,6 +1005,7 @@ static inline struct file *get_file(struct file *f)
>  #define FL_UNLOCK_PENDING	512 /* Lease is being broken */
>  #define FL_OFDLCK	1024	/* lock is "owned" by struct file */
>  #define FL_LAYOUT	2048	/* outstanding pNFS layout or user held pin */
> +#define FL_EXCLUSIVE	4096	/* Layout lease is exclusive */
>  
>  #define FL_CLOSE_POSIX (FL_POSIX | FL_CLOSE)
>  
> diff --git a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> index baddd54f3031..88b175ceccbc 100644
> --- a/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> +++ b/include/uapi/asm-generic/fcntl.h
> @@ -176,6 +176,8 @@ struct f_owner_ex {
>  
>  #define F_LAYOUT	16      /* layout lease to allow longterm pins such as
>  				   RDMA */
> +#define F_EXCLUSIVE	32      /* layout lease is exclusive */
> +				/* FIXME or shoudl this be F_EXLCK??? */
>  
>  /* operations for bsd flock(), also used by the kernel implementation */
>  #define LOCK_SH		1	/* shared lock */

This interface just seems weird to me. The existing F_*LCK values aren't
really set up to be flags, but are enumerated values (even if there are
some gaps on some arches). For instance, on parisc and sparc:

/* for posix fcntl() and lockf() */
#define F_RDLCK         01
#define F_WRLCK         02
#define F_UNLCK         03

While your new flag values are well above these values, it's still a bit
sketchy to do what you're proposing from a cross-platform interface
standpoint.

I think this would be a lot cleaner if you weren't overloading the
F_SETLEASE command with new flags, and instead added new
F_SETLAYOUT/F_GETLAYOUT cmd values.

You'd then be free to define a new set of "arg" values for use with
layouts, and there's be a clear distinction interface-wise between
setting a layout and a lease.

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@kernel.org>



  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-14 14:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 201+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-08-09 22:58 [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 01/19] fs/locks: Export F_LAYOUT lease to user space ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 23:52   ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-09 23:52     ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-12 17:36     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 17:36       ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-14  8:05       ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-14  8:05         ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-14 11:21         ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-14 11:21           ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-14 11:21           ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-14 11:38           ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-14 11:38             ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 02/19] fs/locks: Add Exclusive flag to user Layout lease ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-14 14:15   ` Jeff Layton [this message]
2019-08-14 14:15     ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-14 14:15     ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-14 21:56     ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-26 10:41       ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-26 10:41         ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-26 10:41         ` Jeff Layton
2019-08-29 23:34         ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-29 23:34           ` Ira Weiny
2019-09-04 12:52           ` Jeff Layton
2019-09-04 12:52             ` Jeff Layton
2019-09-04 23:12   ` John Hubbard
2019-09-04 23:12     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 03/19] mm/gup: Pass flags down to __gup_device_huge* calls ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 04/19] mm/gup: Ensure F_LAYOUT lease is held prior to GUP'ing pages ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 05/19] fs/ext4: Teach ext4 to break layout leases ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 06/19] fs/ext4: Teach dax_layout_busy_page() to operate on a sub-range ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-23 15:18   ` Vivek Goyal
2019-08-23 15:18     ` Vivek Goyal
2019-08-29 18:52     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-29 18:52       ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 07/19] fs/xfs: Teach xfs to use new dax_layout_busy_page() ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 23:30   ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-09 23:30     ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-12 18:05     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 18:05       ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-14  8:04       ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 08/19] fs/xfs: Fail truncate if page lease can't be broken ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 23:22   ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-09 23:22     ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-12 18:08     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 09/19] mm/gup: Introduce vaddr_pin structure ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:06   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:06     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:06     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 10/19] mm/gup: Pass a NULL vaddr_pin through GUP fast ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:06   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:06     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:06     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 11/19] mm/gup: Pass follow_page_context further down the call stack ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:18   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:18     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:18     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 19:01     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 19:01       ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 12/19] mm/gup: Prep put_user_pages() to take an vaddr_pin struct ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:30   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:30     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:30     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 20:46     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 13/19] {mm,file}: Add file_pins objects ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 14/19] fs/locks: Associate file pins while performing GUP ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 15/19] mm/gup: Introduce vaddr_pin_pages() ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-10  0:09   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:09     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-10  0:09     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 21:00     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 21:00       ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 21:20       ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 21:20         ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 21:20         ` John Hubbard
2019-08-11 23:07   ` John Hubbard
2019-08-11 23:07     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-11 23:07     ` John Hubbard
2019-08-12 21:01     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 12:28   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-12 21:48     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 21:48       ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 11:47       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-13 17:46         ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 17:46           ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 17:56           ` John Hubbard
2019-08-13 17:56             ` John Hubbard
2019-08-13 17:56             ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 16/19] RDMA/uverbs: Add back pointer to system file object ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-12 13:00   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-12 17:28     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 17:56       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-12 21:15         ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-12 21:15           ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 11:48           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-13 17:41             ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 17:41               ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 18:00               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-13 20:38                 ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-13 20:38                   ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-14 12:23                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-14 17:50                     ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-14 18:15                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-09-04 22:25                     ` Ira Weiny
2019-09-11  8:19                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 17/19] RDMA/umem: Convert to vaddr_[pin|unpin]* operations ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 18/19] {mm,procfs}: Add display file_pins proc ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58 ` [RFC PATCH v2 19/19] mm/gup: Remove FOLL_LONGTERM DAX exclusion ira.weiny
2019-08-09 22:58   ` ira.weiny
2019-08-14 10:17 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Jan Kara
2019-08-14 18:08   ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-14 18:08     ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-08-15 13:05     ` Jan Kara
2019-08-16 19:05       ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-16 19:05         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-08-16 23:20         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-16 23:20           ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-19  6:36           ` Jan Kara
2019-08-19  6:36             ` Jan Kara
2019-08-17  2:26         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-17  2:26           ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-19  6:34           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Jan Kara
2019-08-19  6:34             ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Jan Kara
2019-08-19  9:24             ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Dave Chinner
2019-08-19  9:24               ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-19 12:38               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-19 21:53                 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-19 21:53                   ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-08-20  1:12                 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Dave Chinner
2019-08-20  1:12                   ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-20 11:55                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-21 18:02                     ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 18:02                       ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 18:13                       ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-21 18:22                         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) John Hubbard
2019-08-21 18:22                           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) John Hubbard
2019-08-21 18:57                         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 18:57                           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 19:06                           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 19:06                             ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 19:48                           ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-21 20:44                             ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 23:49                               ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-23  3:23                               ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Dave Chinner
2019-08-23  3:23                                 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-23 12:04                                 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-24  0:11                                   ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Dave Chinner
2019-08-24  0:11                                     ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-24  5:08                                     ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-24  5:08                                       ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-08-26  5:55                                       ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Dave Chinner
2019-08-26  5:55                                         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-29  2:02                                         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-29  2:02                                           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-08-29  3:27                                           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) John Hubbard
2019-08-29  3:27                                             ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) John Hubbard
2019-08-29 16:16                                             ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-29 16:16                                               ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-09-02 22:26                                           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Dave Chinner
2019-09-02 22:26                                             ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-09-04 16:54                                             ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-25 19:39                                     ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-24  4:49                                 ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-24  4:49                                   ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-25 19:40                                   ` Jason Gunthorpe
2019-08-23  0:59                       ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Dave Chinner
2019-08-23  0:59                         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-23 17:15                         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-23 17:15                           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny
2019-08-24  0:18                           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Dave Chinner
2019-08-24  0:18                             ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-20  0:05               ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) John Hubbard
2019-08-20  0:05                 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) John Hubbard
2019-08-20  1:20                 ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Dave Chinner
2019-08-20  1:20                   ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Dave Chinner
2019-08-20  3:09                   ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) John Hubbard
2019-08-20  3:09                     ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) John Hubbard
2019-08-20  3:36                     ` Dave Chinner
2019-08-21 18:43                       ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) John Hubbard
2019-08-21 18:43                         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) John Hubbard
2019-08-21 19:09                         ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ; -) Ira Weiny
2019-08-21 19:09                           ` [RFC PATCH v2 00/19] RDMA/FS DAX truncate proposal V1,000,002 ;-) Ira Weiny

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=fde2959db776616008fc5d31df700f5d7d899433.camel@kernel.org \
    --to=jlayton@kernel.org \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
    --cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
    --cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org \
    --cc=linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mhocko@suse.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=willy@infradead.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.