From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED, USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25742C31E40 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 00:30:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA921214C6 for ; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 00:30:03 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nvidia.com header.i=@nvidia.com header.b="YuSjKP4A" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726140AbfHJAaD (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2019 20:30:03 -0400 Received: from hqemgate14.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.143]:11301 "EHLO hqemgate14.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1725985AbfHJAaD (ORCPT ); Fri, 9 Aug 2019 20:30:03 -0400 Received: from hqpgpgate102.nvidia.com (Not Verified[216.228.121.13]) by hqemgate14.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, DES-CBC3-SHA) id ; Fri, 09 Aug 2019 17:30:03 -0700 Received: from hqmail.nvidia.com ([172.20.161.6]) by hqpgpgate102.nvidia.com (PGP Universal service); Fri, 09 Aug 2019 17:30:01 -0700 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqpgpgate102.nvidia.com on Fri, 09 Aug 2019 17:30:01 -0700 Received: from [10.110.48.28] (172.20.13.39) by HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1473.3; Sat, 10 Aug 2019 00:30:00 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/19] mm/gup: Prep put_user_pages() to take an vaddr_pin struct To: , Andrew Morton CC: Jason Gunthorpe , Dan Williams , Matthew Wilcox , Jan Kara , Theodore Ts'o , Michal Hocko , Dave Chinner , , , , , , , References: <20190809225833.6657-1-ira.weiny@intel.com> <20190809225833.6657-13-ira.weiny@intel.com> X-Nvconfidentiality: public From: John Hubbard Message-ID: <12b6a576-7a64-102c-f4d7-7a4ad34df710@nvidia.com> Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2019 17:30:00 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190809225833.6657-13-ira.weiny@intel.com> X-Originating-IP: [172.20.13.39] X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) To HQMAIL107.nvidia.com (172.20.187.13) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nvidia.com; s=n1; t=1565397003; bh=b6l0EcXIqF+/G734s3cwMmTuz8hr26aRZITM0rTS7i0=; h=X-PGP-Universal:Subject:To:CC:References:X-Nvconfidentiality:From: Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP:X-ClientProxiedBy:Content-Type:Content-Language: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=YuSjKP4AhoHBLbcLLk3pP6lpPKp3lDROEPEvTqE9UI51WZMnw7gDxHjDxCNYgrKFG eJSblzJ11XR+iPKHqtIBfdezKsvu3QyJNyAtWH8orgG5n3CXjFYzGPRkTarpeyNBWM Ld3eQEAg5q/fhZpMxjwhjHlvzkvWoxrjGf8mteQe/9zOwX+/hKrNHzUUZDIkFyAvE4 TUmARG5/QH4nieV6kDH49Ow4NjXJWhjIX2dJU7VZ8T9crzyuhKuNKD4B0ovUrTCKYM z6Jov3Bvzd7/f65uk7zLQUZ9QVk+5mVU49Voiwk1vsJL5LuA4oqdZMOTf5a8XkXl6c 7USB/u58j90KA== Sender: linux-rdma-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On 8/9/19 3:58 PM, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote: > From: Ira Weiny > > Once callers start to use vaddr_pin the put_user_pages calls will need > to have access to this data coming in. Prep put_user_pages() for this > data. > > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny > --- > include/linux/mm.h | 20 +------- > mm/gup.c | 122 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------- > 2 files changed, 88 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h > index befe150d17be..9d37cafbef9a 100644 > --- a/include/linux/mm.h > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h > @@ -1064,25 +1064,7 @@ static inline void put_page(struct page *page) > __put_page(page); > } > > -/** > - * put_user_page() - release a gup-pinned page > - * @page: pointer to page to be released > - * > - * Pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*() must be released via > - * either put_user_page(), or one of the put_user_pages*() routines > - * below. This is so that eventually, pages that are pinned via > - * get_user_pages*() can be separately tracked and uniquely handled. In > - * particular, interactions with RDMA and filesystems need special > - * handling. > - * > - * put_user_page() and put_page() are not interchangeable, despite this early > - * implementation that makes them look the same. put_user_page() calls must > - * be perfectly matched up with get_user_page() calls. > - */ > -static inline void put_user_page(struct page *page) > -{ > - put_page(page); > -} > +void put_user_page(struct page *page); > > void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > bool make_dirty); > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > index a7a9d2f5278c..10cfd30ff668 100644 > --- a/mm/gup.c > +++ b/mm/gup.c > @@ -24,30 +24,41 @@ > > #include "internal.h" > > -/** > - * put_user_pages_dirty_lock() - release and optionally dirty gup-pinned pages > - * @pages: array of pages to be maybe marked dirty, and definitely released. A couple comments from our circular review chain: some fellow with the same last name as you, recommended wording it like this: @pages: array of pages to be put > - * @npages: number of pages in the @pages array. > - * @make_dirty: whether to mark the pages dirty > - * > - * "gup-pinned page" refers to a page that has had one of the get_user_pages() > - * variants called on that page. > - * > - * For each page in the @pages array, make that page (or its head page, if a > - * compound page) dirty, if @make_dirty is true, and if the page was previously > - * listed as clean. In any case, releases all pages using put_user_page(), > - * possibly via put_user_pages(), for the non-dirty case. > - * > - * Please see the put_user_page() documentation for details. > - * > - * set_page_dirty_lock() is used internally. If instead, set_page_dirty() is > - * required, then the caller should a) verify that this is really correct, > - * because _lock() is usually required, and b) hand code it: > - * set_page_dirty_lock(), put_user_page(). > - * > - */ > -void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > - bool make_dirty) > +static void __put_user_page(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, struct page *page) > +{ > + page = compound_head(page); > + > + /* > + * For devmap managed pages we need to catch refcount transition from > + * GUP_PIN_COUNTING_BIAS to 1, when refcount reach one it means the > + * page is free and we need to inform the device driver through > + * callback. See include/linux/memremap.h and HMM for details. > + */ > + if (put_devmap_managed_page(page)) > + return; > + > + if (put_page_testzero(page)) > + __put_page(page); > +} > + > +static void __put_user_pages(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, struct page **pages, > + unsigned long npages) > +{ > + unsigned long index; > + > + /* > + * TODO: this can be optimized for huge pages: if a series of pages is > + * physically contiguous and part of the same compound page, then a > + * single operation to the head page should suffice. > + */ As discussed in the other review thread (""), let's just delete that comment, as long as you're moving things around. > + for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) > + __put_user_page(vaddr_pin, pages[index]); > +} > + > +static void __put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, > + struct page **pages, > + unsigned long npages, > + bool make_dirty) Elsewhere in this series, we pass vaddr_pin at the end of the arg list. Here we pass it at the beginning, and it caused a minor jar when reading it. Obviously just bike shedding at this point, though. Either way. :) > { > unsigned long index; > > @@ -58,7 +69,7 @@ void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > */ > > if (!make_dirty) { > - put_user_pages(pages, npages); > + __put_user_pages(vaddr_pin, pages, npages); > return; > } > > @@ -86,9 +97,58 @@ void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > */ > if (!PageDirty(page)) > set_page_dirty_lock(page); > - put_user_page(page); > + __put_user_page(vaddr_pin, page); > } > } > + > +/** > + * put_user_page() - release a gup-pinned page > + * @page: pointer to page to be released > + * > + * Pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*() must be released via > + * either put_user_page(), or one of the put_user_pages*() routines > + * below. This is so that eventually, pages that are pinned via > + * get_user_pages*() can be separately tracked and uniquely handled. In > + * particular, interactions with RDMA and filesystems need special > + * handling. > + * > + * put_user_page() and put_page() are not interchangeable, despite this early > + * implementation that makes them look the same. put_user_page() calls must > + * be perfectly matched up with get_user_page() calls. > + */ > +void put_user_page(struct page *page) > +{ > + __put_user_page(NULL, page); > +} > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_page); > + > +/** > + * put_user_pages_dirty_lock() - release and optionally dirty gup-pinned pages > + * @pages: array of pages to be maybe marked dirty, and definitely released. Same here: @pages: array of pages to be put > + * @npages: number of pages in the @pages array. > + * @make_dirty: whether to mark the pages dirty > + * > + * "gup-pinned page" refers to a page that has had one of the get_user_pages() > + * variants called on that page. > + * > + * For each page in the @pages array, make that page (or its head page, if a > + * compound page) dirty, if @make_dirty is true, and if the page was previously > + * listed as clean. In any case, releases all pages using put_user_page(), > + * possibly via put_user_pages(), for the non-dirty case. > + * > + * Please see the put_user_page() documentation for details. > + * > + * set_page_dirty_lock() is used internally. If instead, set_page_dirty() is > + * required, then the caller should a) verify that this is really correct, > + * because _lock() is usually required, and b) hand code it: > + * set_page_dirty_lock(), put_user_page(). > + * > + */ > +void put_user_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages, > + bool make_dirty) > +{ > + __put_user_pages_dirty_lock(NULL, pages, npages, make_dirty); > +} > EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_pages_dirty_lock); > > /** > @@ -102,15 +162,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_pages_dirty_lock); > */ > void put_user_pages(struct page **pages, unsigned long npages) > { > - unsigned long index; > - > - /* > - * TODO: this can be optimized for huge pages: if a series of pages is > - * physically contiguous and part of the same compound page, then a > - * single operation to the head page should suffice. > - */ > - for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) > - put_user_page(pages[index]); > + __put_user_pages(NULL, pages, npages); > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(put_user_pages); > > This all looks pretty good, so regardless of the outcome of the minor points above, Reviewed-by: John Hubbard thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA