Re: [PATCH v1 1/3] mm/gup: consistently name GUP-fast functions

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 02.04.24 14:55, David Hildenbrand wrote:
Let's consistently call the "fast-only" part of GUP "GUP-fast" and rename
all relevant internal functions to start with "gup_fast", to make it
clearer that this is not ordinary GUP. The current mixture of
"lockless", "gup" and "gup_fast" is confusing.

Further, avoid the term "huge" when talking about a "leaf" -- for
example, we nowadays check pmd_leaf() because pmd_huge() is gone. For the
"hugepd"/"hugepte" stuff, it's part of the name ("is_hugepd"), so that
stays.

What remains is the "external" interface:
* get_user_pages_fast_only()
* get_user_pages_fast()
* pin_user_pages_fast()

The high-level internal functions for GUP-fast (+slow fallback) are now:
* internal_get_user_pages_fast() -> gup_fast_fallback()
* lockless_pages_from_mm() -> gup_fast()

The basic GUP-fast walker functions:
* gup_pgd_range() -> gup_fast_pgd_range()
* gup_p4d_range() -> gup_fast_p4d_range()
* gup_pud_range() -> gup_fast_pud_range()
* gup_pmd_range() -> gup_fast_pmd_range()
* gup_pte_range() -> gup_fast_pte_range()
* gup_huge_pgd()  -> gup_fast_pgd_leaf()
* gup_huge_pud()  -> gup_fast_pud_leaf()
* gup_huge_pmd()  -> gup_fast_pmd_leaf()

The weird hugepd stuff:
* gup_huge_pd() -> gup_fast_hugepd()
* gup_hugepte() -> gup_fast_hugepte()

I just realized that we end up calling these from follow_hugepd() as well. And something seems to be off, because gup_fast_hugepd() won't have the VMA even in the slow-GUP case to pass it to gup_must_unshare().

So these are GUP-fast functions and the terminology seem correct. But the usage from follow_hugepd() is questionable,

commit a12083d721d703f985f4403d6b333cc449f838f6
Author: Peter Xu <peterx@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date:   Wed Mar 27 11:23:31 2024 -0400

    mm/gup: handle hugepd for follow_page()


states "With previous refactors on fast-gup gup_huge_pd(), most of the code can be leveraged", which doesn't look quite true just staring the the gup_must_unshare() call where we don't pass the VMA. Also, "unlikely(pte_val(pte) != pte_val(ptep_get(ptep)" doesn't make any sense for slow GUP ...

@Peter, any insights?

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux Ext4 Filesystem]     [Union Filesystem]     [Filesystem Testing]     [Ceph Users]     [Ecryptfs]     [NTFS 3]     [AutoFS]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [Security]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux Cachefs]     [Reiser Filesystem]     [Linux RAID]     [NTFS 3]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]     [CEPH Development]

  Powered by Linux