On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 09:44:17PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > mm/gup.c | 88 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
> > 1 file changed, 46 insertions(+), 42 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > index 102877ed77a4b4..ecbe1639ea2af7 100644
> > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > @@ -2671,13 +2671,42 @@ static int __gup_longterm_unlocked(unsigned long start, int nr_pages,
> > return ret;
> > }
> > +static unsigned int lockless_pages_from_mm(unsigned long addr,
>
> It would be slightly more consistent to use "start" here, too, instead of addr.
>
> Separately, I'm not joyful about the change to unsigned int for the
> return type. I understand why you did it and that's perfectly sound
> reasoning: there is no -ERRNO possible here, and nr_pinned will always
> be >=0. And it's correct, although it does have a type mismatch in the
> return value.
I did it because I had to check that ignoring a negative return or
doing some wonky negative arithmetic wasn't some sneaky beahvior. It
isn't, the value is really unsigned. So I documented it to save the
next person this work.
I think the proper response is to ultimately change the
gup_pgd_range() call tree to take the unsigned as well.
> a) change all the nr_pages and nr_pinned throughout, to "long", or
>
> b) change all the nr_pages and nr_pinned all function args, and use int
> return types throughout, as a "O or -ERRNO, only" return value
> convention.
The gup_pgd_range() this stuff largely does return
I think gup_pgd_range() works as it does due to
> > + start += (unsigned long)nr_pinned << PAGE_SHIFT;
> > + pages += nr_pinned;
> > + ret = __gup_longterm_unlocked(start, nr_pages - nr_pinned, gup_flags,
> > + pages);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > /* Have to be a bit careful with return values */
>
> ...and can we move that comment up one level, so that it reads:
>
> /* Have to be a bit careful with return values */
> if (ret < 0) {
> if (nr_pinned)
> return nr_pinned;
> return ret;
> }
> return ret + nr_pinned;
I actually deliberately put it inside the if because there is nothing
tricky about ret < 0, that is basically perfectly normal. It is only
the logic to drop the error code sometimes that is tricky..
> Thinking about this longer term, it would be nice if the whole gup/pup API
> set just stopped pretending that anyone cares about partial success, because
> they *don't*. If we had return values of "0 or -ERRNO" throughout, and an
> additional set of API wrappers that did some sort of limited retry just like
> some of the callers do, that would be a happier story.
It seems like a good idea to me
I'll get the other notes in a v2
Thanks,
Jason
