On 8/8/19 4:09 AM, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
> On 8/8/19 8:21 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>> On Wed 07-08-19 16:32:08, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> On 8/7/19 4:01 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
>>>> On Mon 05-08-19 15:20:17, john.hubbard@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Actually, I think follow_page_mask() gets all the pages, right? And the
>>> get_page() in __munlock_pagevec_fill() is there to allow a pagevec_release()
>>> later.
>>
>> Maybe I am misreading the code (looking at Linus tree) but munlock_vma_pages_range
>> calls follow_page for the start address and then if not THP tries to
>> fill up the pagevec with few more pages (up to end), do the shortcut
>> via manual pte walk as an optimization and use generic get_page there.
>
Yes, I see it finally, thanks. :)
> That's true. However, I'm not sure munlocking is where the
> put_user_page() machinery is intended to be used anyway? These are
> short-term pins for struct page manipulation, not e.g. dirtying of page
> contents. Reading commit fc1d8e7cca2d I don't think this case falls
> within the reasoning there. Perhaps not all GUP users should be
> converted to the planned separate GUP tracking, and instead we should
> have a GUP/follow_page_mask() variant that keeps using get_page/put_page?
>
Interesting. So far, the approach has been to get all the gup callers to
release via put_user_page(), but if we add in Jan's and Ira's vaddr_pin_pages()
wrapper, then maybe we could leave some sites unconverted.
However, in order to do so, we would have to change things so that we have
one set of APIs (gup) that do *not* increment a pin count, and another set
(vaddr_pin_pages) that do.
Is that where we want to go...?
I have a tracking patch that only deals with gup/pup. I could post as an RFC,
but I think it might just muddy the waters at this point, anyway it's this one:
https://github.com/johnhubbard/linux/commit/a0fb73ce0a39c74f0d1fb6bd9d866f660f762eae
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
