On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 10:15:55AM -0700, Dan Williams wrote: >> On Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 4:27 AM, Peter Zijlstra <pet...@infradead.org> wrote: >> > On Fri, Mar 09, 2018 at 10:55:32PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: >> >> Add a generic facility for awaiting an atomic_t to reach a value of 1. >> >> >> >> Page reference counts typically need to reach 0 to be considered a >> >> free / inactive page. However, ZONE_DEVICE pages allocated via >> >> devm_memremap_pages() are never 'onlined', i.e. the put_page() typically >> >> done at init time to assign pages to the page allocator is skipped. >> >> >> >> These pages will have their reference count elevated > 1 by >> >> get_user_pages() when they are under DMA. In order to coordinate DMA to >> >> these pages vs filesytem operations like hole-punch and truncate the >> >> filesystem-dax implementation needs to capture the DMA-idle event i.e. >> >> the 2 to 1 count transition). >> >> >> >> For now, this implementation does not have functional behavior change, >> >> follow-on patches will add waiters for these page-idle events. >> > >> > Argh, no no no.. That whole wait_for_atomic_t thing is a giant >> > trainwreck already and now you're making it worse still. >> > >> > Please have a look here: >> > >> > >> > https://lkml.kernel.org/r/20171101190644.chwhfpoz3ywxx...@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net >> >> That thread seems to be worried about the object disappearing the >> moment it's reference count reaches a target. That isn't the case with >> the memmap / struct page objects for ZONE_DEVICE pages. I understand >> wait_for_atomic_one() is broken in the general case, but as far as I >> can see it works fine specifically for ZONE_DEVICE page busy tracking, >> just not generic object lifetime. > > How's this, compile tested (x86_64-allmodconfig) only. > > This allows you to write: > > wait_var_event(&your_atomic, atomic_read(&your_atomic) == 1);
This works for me, you can add Tested-by: Dan Williams <dan.j.willi...@intel.com> ...to the upstream version. Can we add this new api in an immutable commit tip/sched/core tree, so I can base my fix on it? The wait_for_atomic_t removal can then come in follow-on patches.
