Hi Zach,
On 02/05/2013 07:02 AM, Zach Brown wrote:
>>> index 71f613c..0e9b30a 100644
>>> --- a/fs/aio.c
>>> +++ b/fs/aio.c
>>> @@ -138,9 +138,15 @@ static int aio_setup_ring(struct kioctx *ctx)
>>> }
>>>
>>> dprintk("mmap address: 0x%08lx\n", info->mmap_base);
>>> +#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE
>>> + info->nr_pages = get_user_pages_non_movable(current, ctx->mm,
>>> + info->mmap_base, nr_pages,
>>> + 1, 0, info->ring_pages, NULL);
>>> +#else
>>> info->nr_pages = get_user_pages(current, ctx->mm,
>>> info->mmap_base, nr_pages,
>>> 1, 0, info->ring_pages, NULL);
>>> +#endif
>>
>> Can't you hide this in your 1/1 patch, by providing this function as
>> just a static inline wrapper around get_user_pages when
>> CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTREMOVE is not enabled?
>
> Yes, please. Having callers duplicate the call site for a single
> optional boolean input is unacceptable.
I will deal with it in next version :)
>
> But do we want another input argument as a name? Should aio have been
> using get_user_pages_fast()? (and so now _fast_non_movable?)
>
> I wonder if it's time to offer the booleans as a _flags() variant, much
> like the current internal flags for __get_user_pages(). The write and
> force arguments are already booleans, we have a different fast api, and
> now we're adding non-movable. The NON_MOVABLE flag would be 0 without
> MEMORY_HOTREMOVE, easy peasy.
As my next reply-mail mentioned, IIUC in GUP case additional flags seems doesn't work,
I abstract here:
As I debuged the get_user_pages(), I found that some pages is already there and may be
allocated before we call get_user_pages(). __get_user_pages() have following logic to
handle such case.
1786 while (!(page = follow_page(vma, start, foll_flags))) {
1787 int ret;
To such case an additional alloc-flag or such doesn't work, it's difficult to keep GUP
as smart as we want , so I worked out the migration approach to get around and
avoid messing up the current code.
And even worse we have already got *8* arguments...Maybe we have to rework the boolean
arguments into bit flags... It seems not a little work :(
>
> Turning current callers' mysterious '1, 1' in to 'WRITE|FORCE' might
> also be nice :).
Agree, maybe we could handle them later :)
thanks,
linfeng
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
