On Sun, Mar 10, 2019 at 08:10:35AM +0000, Haggai Eran wrote: > > > On 3/6/2019 10:46 PM, John Hubbard wrote: > > On 3/6/19 3:24 AM, ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> From: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> No device supports ODP MR without an invalidate_range callback. > >> > >> Warn on any any device which attempts to support ODP without > >> supplying this callback. > >> > >> Then we can remove the checks for the callback within the code. > >> > >> This stems from the discussion > >> > >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-rdma/msg76460.html > >> > >> ...which concluded this code was no longer necessary. > >> > >> Compile tested only > >> > >> CC: Haggai Eran <haggaie@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: Artemy Kovalyov <artemyko@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> CC: John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@xxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> --- > >> Changes from V1: > >> remove stored_page logic which was also unnecessary > >> remove unnecessary put_page > >> > >> drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c | 5 +++++ > >> drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c | 13 +++---------- > >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c > >> index fe5551562dbc..89a7d57f9fa5 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c > >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c > >> @@ -138,6 +138,11 @@ struct ib_umem *ib_umem_get(struct ib_udata *udata, unsigned long addr, > >> mmgrab(mm); > >> > >> if (access & IB_ACCESS_ON_DEMAND) { > >> + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!context->invalidate_range)) { > >> + ret = -EINVAL; > >> + goto umem_kfree; > >> + } > >> + > >> ret = ib_umem_odp_get(to_ib_umem_odp(umem), access); > >> if (ret) > >> goto umem_kfree; > >> diff --git a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c > >> index 577f1b12bff4..ec0ed9190ab6 100644 > >> --- a/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c > >> +++ b/drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c > >> @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ static struct ib_ucontext_per_mm *alloc_per_mm(struct ib_ucontext *ctx, > >> per_mm->mm = mm; > >> per_mm->umem_tree = RB_ROOT_CACHED; > >> init_rwsem(&per_mm->umem_rwsem); > >> - per_mm->active = ctx->invalidate_range; > >> + per_mm->active = true; > >> > >> rcu_read_lock(); > >> per_mm->tgid = get_task_pid(current->group_leader, PIDTYPE_PID); > >> @@ -503,7 +503,6 @@ static int ib_umem_odp_map_dma_single_page( > >> struct ib_umem *umem = &umem_odp->umem; > >> struct ib_device *dev = umem->context->device; > >> dma_addr_t dma_addr; > >> - int stored_page = 0; > >> int remove_existing_mapping = 0; > >> int ret = 0; > >> > >> @@ -528,7 +527,6 @@ static int ib_umem_odp_map_dma_single_page( > >> umem_odp->dma_list[page_index] = dma_addr | access_mask; > >> umem_odp->page_list[page_index] = page; > >> umem->npages++; > >> - stored_page = 1; > >> } else if (umem_odp->page_list[page_index] == page) { > >> umem_odp->dma_list[page_index] |= access_mask; > >> } else { > >> @@ -540,11 +538,9 @@ static int ib_umem_odp_map_dma_single_page( > >> } > >> > >> out: > >> - /* On Demand Paging - avoid pinning the page */ > >> - if (umem->context->invalidate_range || !stored_page) > >> - put_page(page); > >> + put_page(page); > >> > >> - if (remove_existing_mapping && umem->context->invalidate_range) { > >> + if (remove_existing_mapping) { > >> ib_umem_notifier_start_account(umem_odp); > >> umem->context->invalidate_range( > >> umem_odp, > >> @@ -751,9 +747,6 @@ void ib_umem_odp_unmap_dma_pages(struct ib_umem_odp *umem_odp, u64 virt, > >> */ > >> set_page_dirty(head_page); > >> } > >> - /* on demand pinning support */ > >> - if (!umem->context->invalidate_range) > >> - put_page(page); > >> umem_odp->page_list[idx] = NULL; > >> umem_odp->dma_list[idx] = 0; > >> umem->npages--; > >> > > > > Hi Ira, > > > > This all looks logically correct and consistent, and it is also what the > > discussion ended up recommending. Although I'm not a qualified reviewer of > > the larger code base, I think this patch is correct, FWIW. > > Looks good to me as well. Thanks for looking, can I consider this a Reviewed-by? Ira > > Thanks, > Haggai
