From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>,
Daniel Black <daniel@linux.ibm.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
Mike Kravetz <mike.kravetz@oracle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mm/mlock.c: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()
Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 11:16:14 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190809091614.GO18351@dhcp22.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <a83e4449-fc8d-7771-1b78-2fa645fa0772@nvidia.com>
On Fri 09-08-19 02:05:15, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 8/9/19 1:23 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Fri 09-08-19 10:12:48, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> > > On 8/9/19 12:59 AM, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > > > > That's true. However, I'm not sure munlocking is where the
> > > > > > put_user_page() machinery is intended to be used anyway? These are
> > > > > > short-term pins for struct page manipulation, not e.g. dirtying of page
> > > > > > contents. Reading commit fc1d8e7cca2d I don't think this case falls
> > > > > > within the reasoning there. Perhaps not all GUP users should be
> > > > > > converted to the planned separate GUP tracking, and instead we should
> > > > > > have a GUP/follow_page_mask() variant that keeps using get_page/put_page?
> > > > >
> > > > > Interesting. So far, the approach has been to get all the gup callers to
> > > > > release via put_user_page(), but if we add in Jan's and Ira's vaddr_pin_pages()
> > > > > wrapper, then maybe we could leave some sites unconverted.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, in order to do so, we would have to change things so that we have
> > > > > one set of APIs (gup) that do *not* increment a pin count, and another set
> > > > > (vaddr_pin_pages) that do.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is that where we want to go...?
> > > > >
> > >
> > > We already have a FOLL_LONGTERM flag, isn't that somehow related? And if
> > > it's not exactly the same thing, perhaps a new gup flag to distinguish
> > > which kind of pinning to use?
> >
> > Agreed. This is a shiny example how forcing all existing gup users into
> > the new scheme is subotimal at best. Not the mention the overal
> > fragility mention elsewhere. I dislike the conversion even more now.
> >
> > Sorry if this was already discussed already but why the new pinning is
> > not bound to FOLL_LONGTERM (ideally hidden by an interface so that users
> > do not have to care about the flag) only?
> >
>
> Oh, it's been discussed alright, but given how some of the discussions have gone,
> I certainly am not surprised that there are still questions and criticisms!
> Especially since I may have misunderstood some of the points, along the way.
> It's been quite a merry go round. :)
Yeah, I've tried to follow them but just gave up at some point.
> Anyway, what I'm hearing now is: for gup(FOLL_LONGTERM), apply the pinned tracking.
> And therefore only do put_user_page() on pages that were pinned with
> FOLL_LONGTERM. For short term pins, let the locking do what it will:
> things can briefly block and all will be well.
>
> Also, that may or may not come with a wrapper function, courtesy of Jan
> and Ira.
>
> Is that about right? It's late here, but I don't immediately recall any
> problems with doing it that way...
Yes that makes more sense to me. Whoever needs that tracking should
opt-in for it. Otherwise you just risk problems like the one discussed
in the mlock path (because we do a strange stuff in the name of
performance) and a never ending whack a mole where new users do not
follow the new API usage and that results in all sorts of weird issues.
Thanks!
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-09 9:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-05 22:20 [PATCH 0/3] mm/: 3 more put_user_page() conversions john.hubbard
2019-08-05 22:20 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm/mlock.c: convert put_page() to put_user_page*() john.hubbard
2019-08-07 11:01 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-07 23:32 ` John Hubbard
2019-08-08 6:21 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-08 11:09 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-08 19:20 ` John Hubbard
2019-08-08 22:59 ` John Hubbard
2019-08-08 23:41 ` Ira Weiny
2019-08-08 23:57 ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 18:22 ` Weiny, Ira
2019-08-09 8:12 ` Vlastimil Babka
2019-08-09 8:23 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-09 9:05 ` John Hubbard
2019-08-09 9:16 ` Michal Hocko [this message]
2019-08-09 13:58 ` Jan Kara
2019-08-09 17:52 ` Michal Hocko
2019-08-09 18:14 ` Weiny, Ira
2019-08-09 18:36 ` John Hubbard
2019-08-05 22:20 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm/mempolicy.c: " john.hubbard
2019-08-05 22:20 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm/ksm: " john.hubbard
2019-08-06 21:59 ` [PATCH 0/3] mm/: 3 more put_user_page() conversions Andrew Morton
2019-08-06 22:05 ` John Hubbard
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=20190809091614.GO18351@dhcp22.suse.cz \
--to=mhocko@kernel.org \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
--cc=daniel@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=ira.weiny@intel.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jgg@ziepe.ca \
--cc=jglisse@redhat.com \
--cc=jhubbard@nvidia.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=mike.kravetz@oracle.com \
--cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
--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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).