On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
>me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check
>mm != current->mm and imply that. Maybe there are some contexts which
>wouldn't work, I haven't checked.
>
>Then I am also wondering about FOLL_TOUCH behavior.
>__get_user_pages_unlocked has only few callers which used to be
>get_user_pages_unlocked before 1e9877902dc7e ("mm/gup: Introduce
>get_user_pages_remote()"). To me a dropped FOLL_TOUCH seems
>unintentional. Now that get_user_pages_unlocked has gup_flags argument I
>guess we might want to get rid of the __g-u-p-u version altogether, no?
>
>__get_user_pages is quite low level and imho shouldn't be exported. It's
>only user - kvm - should rather pull those two functions to gup instead
>and export them. There is nothing really KVM specific in them.
I believe I've attacked each of these, other than the use of explicit
FOLL_REMOTE which was explained by Dave.
> I also cannot say I would be entirely thrilled about get_user_pages_locked,
> we only have one user which can simply do lock g-u-p unlock AFAICS.
The principle difference here seems to be the availability of VM_FAULT_RETRY
behaviour (by passing a non-NULL locked argument), and indeed the comments in
gup.c recommends using get_user_pages_locked() if possible (though it seems not
to have been heeded too much :), so I'm not sure if this would be a fruitful
refactor, let me know!
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>