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=-5.2 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,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 7C9AFC433FF for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 21:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5770A206C2 for ; Tue, 13 Aug 2019 21:09:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726186AbfHMVI7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Aug 2019 17:08:59 -0400 Received: from mga11.intel.com ([192.55.52.93]:8766 "EHLO mga11.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726124AbfHMVI7 (ORCPT ); Tue, 13 Aug 2019 17:08:59 -0400 X-Amp-Result: UNKNOWN X-Amp-Original-Verdict: FILE UNKNOWN X-Amp-File-Uploaded: False Received: from orsmga007.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.58]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 13 Aug 2019 14:08:58 -0700 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.64,382,1559545200"; d="scan'208";a="167177095" Received: from iweiny-desk2.sc.intel.com ([10.3.52.157]) by orsmga007.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 13 Aug 2019 14:08:57 -0700 Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2019 14:08:57 -0700 From: Ira Weiny To: John Hubbard Cc: Andrew Morton , Christoph Hellwig , Dan Williams , Dave Chinner , Jan Kara , Jason Gunthorpe , =?iso-8859-1?B?Suly9G1l?= Glisse , LKML , linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2] mm/gup: introduce vaddr_pin_pages_remote() Message-ID: <20190813210857.GB12695@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> References: <20190812015044.26176-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20190812015044.26176-3-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20190812234950.GA6455@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <38d2ff2f-4a69-e8bd-8f7c-41f1dbd80fae@nvidia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <38d2ff2f-4a69-e8bd-8f7c-41f1dbd80fae@nvidia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.11.1 (2018-12-01) Sender: linux-rdma-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 05:07:32PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > On 8/12/19 4:49 PM, Ira Weiny wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 06:50:44PM -0700, john.hubbard@gmail.com wrote: > > > From: John Hubbard > ... > > > diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c > > > index 53085896d718..fdff034a8a30 100644 > > > --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c > > > +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c > > > @@ -534,7 +534,7 @@ static int ib_umem_odp_map_dma_single_page( > > > } > > > out: > > > - put_user_page(page); > > > + vaddr_unpin_pages(&page, 1, &umem_odp->umem.vaddr_pin); > > > if (remove_existing_mapping) { > > > ib_umem_notifier_start_account(umem_odp); > > > @@ -635,9 +635,10 @@ int ib_umem_odp_map_dma_pages(struct ib_umem_odp *umem_odp, u64 user_virt, > > > * complex (and doesn't gain us much performance in most use > > > * cases). > > > */ > > > - npages = get_user_pages_remote(owning_process, owning_mm, > > > + npages = vaddr_pin_pages_remote(owning_process, owning_mm, > > > user_virt, gup_num_pages, > > > - flags, local_page_list, NULL, NULL); > > > + flags, local_page_list, NULL, NULL, > > > + &umem_odp->umem.vaddr_pin); > > > > Thinking about this part of the patch... is this pin really necessary? This > > code is not doing a long term pin. The page just needs a reference while we > > map it into the devices page tables. Once that is done we should get notifiers > > if anything changes and we can adjust. right? > > > > OK, now it's a little interesting: the FOLL_PIN is necessary, but maybe not > FOLL_LONGTERM. Illustrating once again that it's actually necessary to allow > these flags to vary independently. Why is PIN necessary? I think we do want all drivers to use the new user_uaddr_vaddr_pin_user_pages() call... :-P But in this case I think a simple "get" reference is enough to reference the page while we are using it. If it changes after the "put/unpin" we get a fault which should handle the change right? The other issue I have with FOLL_PIN is what does it mean to call "...pin...()" without FOLL_PIN? This is another confusion of get_user_pages()... you can actually call it without FOLL_GET... :-/ And you just don't get pages back. I've never really dug into how (or if) you "put" them later... > > And that leads to another API refinement idea: let's set FOLL_PIN within the > vaddr_pin_pages*() wrappers, and set FOLL_LONGTER in the *callers* of those > wrappers, yes? I've thought about this before and I think any default flags should simply define what we want follow_pages to do. Also, the addition of vaddr_pin information creates an implicit flag which if not there disallows any file pages from being pinned. It becomes our new "longterm" flag. FOLL_PIN _could_ be what we should use "internally". But we could also just use this implicit vaddr_pin flag and not add a new flag. Finally, I struggle with converting everyone to a new call. It is more overhead to use vaddr_pin in the call above because now the GUP code is going to associate a file pin object with that file when in ODP we don't need that because the pages can move around. This overhead may be fine, not sure in this case, but I don't see everyone wanting it. Ira