linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Weiny, Ira" <ira.weiny@intel.com>
To: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
Cc: Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
	Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, 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-mm@kvack.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Williams, Dan J" <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 18:22:07 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <2807E5FD2F6FDA4886F6618EAC48510E79E7F453@CRSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5713cc2b-b41c-142a-eb52-f5cda999eca7@nvidia.com>

> 
> On 8/8/19 4:41 PM, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 08, 2019 at 03:59:15PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> >> On 8/8/19 12:20 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> >>> On 8/8/19 4:09 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> >>>> On 8/8/19 8:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>> On Wed 07-08-19 16:32:08, John Hubbard wrote:
> >>>>>> On 8/7/19 4:01 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon 05-08-19 15:20:17, john.hubbard@gmail.com wrote:
> ...
> >> Oh, and meanwhile, I'm leaning toward a cheap fix: just use
> >> gup_fast() instead of get_page(), and also fix the releasing code. So
> >> this incremental patch, on top of the existing one, should do it:
> >>
> >> diff --git a/mm/mlock.c b/mm/mlock.c
> >> index b980e6270e8a..2ea272c6fee3 100644
> >> --- a/mm/mlock.c
> >> +++ b/mm/mlock.c
> >> @@ -318,18 +318,14 @@ static void __munlock_pagevec(struct pagevec
> *pvec, struct zone *zone)
> >>                 /*
> >>                  * We won't be munlocking this page in the next phase
> >>                  * but we still need to release the follow_page_mask()
> >> -                * pin. We cannot do it under lru_lock however. If it's
> >> -                * the last pin, __page_cache_release() would deadlock.
> >> +                * pin.
> >>                  */
> >> -               pagevec_add(&pvec_putback, pvec->pages[i]);
> >> +               put_user_page(pages[i]);
> 
> correction, make that:
>                    put_user_page(pvec->pages[i]);
> 
> (This is not fully tested yet.)
> 
> >>                 pvec->pages[i] = NULL;
> >>         }
> >>         __mod_zone_page_state(zone, NR_MLOCK, delta_munlocked);
> >>         spin_unlock_irq(&zone->zone_pgdat->lru_lock);
> >>
> >> -       /* Now we can release pins of pages that we are not munlocking */
> >> -       pagevec_release(&pvec_putback);
> >> -
> >
> > I'm not an expert but this skips a call to lru_add_drain().  Is that ok?
> 
> Yes: unless I'm missing something, there is no reason to go through
> lru_add_drain in this case. These are gup'd pages that are not going to get
> any further processing.
> 
> >
> >>         /* Phase 2: page munlock */
> >>         for (i = 0; i < nr; i++) {
> >>                 struct page *page = pvec->pages[i]; @@ -394,6 +390,8
> >> @@ static unsigned long __munlock_pagevec_fill(struct pagevec *pvec,
> >>         start += PAGE_SIZE;
> >>         while (start < end) {
> >>                 struct page *page = NULL;
> >> +               int ret;
> >> +
> >>                 pte++;
> >>                 if (pte_present(*pte))
> >>                         page = vm_normal_page(vma, start, *pte); @@
> >> -411,7 +409,13 @@ static unsigned long __munlock_pagevec_fill(struct
> pagevec *pvec,
> >>                 if (PageTransCompound(page))
> >>                         break;
> >>
> >> -               get_page(page);
> >> +               /*
> >> +                * Use get_user_pages_fast(), instead of get_page() so that the
> >> +                * releasing code can unconditionally call put_user_page().
> >> +                */
> >> +               ret = get_user_pages_fast(start, 1, 0, &page);
> >> +               if (ret != 1)
> >> +                       break;
> >
> > I like the idea of making this a get/put pair but I'm feeling uneasy
> > about how this is really supposed to work.
> >
> > For sure the GUP/PUP was supposed to be separate from [get|put]_page.
> >
> 
> Actually, they both take references on the page. And it is absolutely OK to call
> them both on the same page.
> 
> But anyway, we're not mixing them up here. If you follow the code paths,
> either gup or follow_page_mask() is used, and then put_user_page()
> releases.
> 
> So...you haven't actually pointed to a bug here, right? :)

No...  no bug.

sorry this was just a general comment on semantics.  But in keeping with the semantics discussion it is further confusing that follow_page_mask() is also mixed in here...

Which is where my comment was driving toward.  If you call GUP there should be a PUP.  Get_page/put_page...  follow_page/unfollow_page...  ???  ;-)  Ok now I'm off the rails...  but that was the point...

I think Jan and Michal are onto something here WRT internal vs external interfaces.

Ira


  reply	other threads:[~2019-08-09 18:22 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 [this message]
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
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=2807E5FD2F6FDA4886F6618EAC48510E79E7F453@CRSMSX101.amr.corp.intel.com \
    --to=ira.weiny@intel.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=dan.j.williams@intel.com \
    --cc=daniel@linux.ibm.com \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --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=mhocko@kernel.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).