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=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS 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 54BF2C169C4 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 22:33:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22865205C9 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 22:33:57 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nvidia.com header.i=@nvidia.com header.b="kXNHhFIl" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727513AbfBKWdz (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:33:55 -0500 Received: from hqemgate14.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.143]:11878 "EHLO hqemgate14.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726751AbfBKWdy (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 17:33:54 -0500 Received: from hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com (Not Verified[216.228.121.13]) by hqemgate14.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, DES-CBC3-SHA) id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:33:56 -0800 Received: from hqmail.nvidia.com ([172.20.161.6]) by hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com (PGP Universal service); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:33:54 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com on Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:33:54 -0800 Received: from [10.110.48.28] (10.124.1.5) by HQMAIL101.nvidia.com (172.20.187.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 22:33:53 +0000 Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Discuss least bad options for resolving longterm-GUP usage by RDMA To: Jason Gunthorpe CC: Ira Weiny , Dan Williams , Jan Kara , Dave Chinner , Christopher Lameter , Doug Ledford , Matthew Wilcox , , linux-rdma , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jerome Glisse , Michal Hocko References: <01000168c8e2de6b-9ab820ed-38ad-469c-b210-60fcff8ea81c-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20190208044302.GA20493@dastard> <20190208111028.GD6353@quack2.suse.cz> <20190211102402.GF19029@quack2.suse.cz> <20190211180654.GB24692@ziepe.ca> <20190211181921.GA5526@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> <20190211221247.GI24692@ziepe.ca> From: John Hubbard X-Nvconfidentiality: public Message-ID: <018c1a05-5fd8-886a-573b-42649949bba8@nvidia.com> Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 14:33:53 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190211221247.GI24692@ziepe.ca> X-Originating-IP: [10.124.1.5] X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL104.nvidia.com (172.18.146.11) To HQMAIL101.nvidia.com (172.20.187.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US-large Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nvidia.com; s=n1; t=1549924436; bh=YrcCJUXUeBjmMXB4uAD+t8FoXjzbCfi0g/YDioIq2Sw=; h=X-PGP-Universal:Subject:To:CC:References:From:X-Nvconfidentiality: Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP:X-ClientProxiedBy:Content-Type:Content-Language: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=kXNHhFIlhXR6pc/L0Z1RTsNAjsVn4a6I560QWLYgQ/t3+67h3c1paRKSx60lQxe0p 96BPi5SdqVdeSYR/Z1X7YmtQLd9GURSz4xtlAI2vtr5b82Vwtn+p/pkGq8RDPYigHU ZuuNEPd5AU2TPsX66w/GQLDFVIcd/DMFAN5TLcnqJeSq81JKez3cfR7HeQNyIGDl2w sprTQRrmmTv/AJ9hWUI7vermVLhyEFMgQtS7EjVnt0mN2KXDkHZaw2ZJc6Lb0ut3cG Jxc14gDufMUn/mJsi0Gk/AZWTUFARxEQnKlobPAEnQoxMnFHz0ogmBMiEDrKK9NRgS R4CnKnY1GNrfw== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/11/19 2:12 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 01:22:11PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote: > >> The only way that breaks is if longterm pins imply an irreversible action, such >> as blocking and waiting in a way that you can't back out of or get interrupted >> out of. And the design doesn't seem to be going in that direction, right? > > RDMA, vfio, etc will always have 'long term' pins that are > irreversible on demand. It is part of the HW capability. > Yes, I get that about the HW. But I didn't quite phrase it accurately. What I meant was, irreversible from the kernel code's point of view; specifically, the filesystem while in various writeback paths. But anyway, Jan's proposal a bit earlier today [1] is finally sinking into my head--if we actually go that way, and prevent the caller from setting up a problematic gup pin in the first place, then that may make this point sort of moot. > I think the flag is badly named, it is really more of a > GUP_LOCK_PHYSICAL_ADDRESSES flag. > > ie indicate to the FS that is should not attempt to remap physical > memory addresses backing this VMA. If the FS can't do that it must > fail. > Yes. Duration is probably less important than the fact that the page is specially treated. [1] https://lore.kernel.org/r/20190211102402.GF19029@quack2.suse.cz thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA