On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 05:09:54PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 8/9/19 3:58 PM, ira.we...@intel.com wrote:
> > From: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com>
> >
> > The addition of FOLL_LONGTERM has taken on additional meaning for CMA
> > pages.
> >
> > In addition subsystems such as RDMA require new information to be passed
> > to the GUP interface to track file owning information. As such a simple
> > FOLL_LONGTERM flag is no longer sufficient for these users to pin pages.
> >
> > Introduce a new GUP like call which takes the newly introduced vaddr_pin
> > information. Failure to pass the vaddr_pin object back to a vaddr_put*
> > call will result in a failure if pins were created on files during the
> > pin operation.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Ira Weiny <ira.we...@intel.com>
> >
> > ---
> > Changes from list:
> > Change to vaddr_put_pages_dirty_lock
> > Change to vaddr_unpin_pages_dirty_lock
> >
> > include/linux/mm.h | 5 ++++
> > mm/gup.c | 59 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 2 files changed, 64 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/include/linux/mm.h b/include/linux/mm.h
> > index 657c947bda49..90c5802866df 100644
> > --- a/include/linux/mm.h
> > +++ b/include/linux/mm.h
> > @@ -1603,6 +1603,11 @@ int account_locked_vm(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned
> > long pages, bool inc);
> > int __account_locked_vm(struct mm_struct *mm, unsigned long pages, bool
> > inc,
> > struct task_struct *task, bool bypass_rlim);
> >
> > +long vaddr_pin_pages(unsigned long addr, unsigned long nr_pages,
> > + unsigned int gup_flags, struct page **pages,
> > + struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin);
> > +void vaddr_unpin_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long
> > nr_pages,
> > + struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, bool make_dirty);
>
> Hi Ira,
>
> OK, the API seems fine to me, anyway. :)
>
> A bit more below...
>
> > bool mapping_inode_has_layout(struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, struct page
> > *page);
> >
> > /* Container for pinned pfns / pages */
> > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c
> > index eeaa0ddd08a6..6d23f70d7847 100644
> > --- a/mm/gup.c
> > +++ b/mm/gup.c
> > @@ -2536,3 +2536,62 @@ int get_user_pages_fast(unsigned long start, int
> > nr_pages,
> > return ret;
> > }
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(get_user_pages_fast);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * vaddr_pin_pages pin pages by virtual address and return the pages to the
> > + * user.
> > + *
> > + * @addr, start address
>
> What's with the commas? I thought kernel-doc wants colons, like this, right?
>
> @addr: start address
:-/ I don't know.
Fixed.
>
>
> > + * @nr_pages, number of pages to pin
> > + * @gup_flags, flags to use for the pin
> > + * @pages, array of pages returned
> > + * @vaddr_pin, initalized meta information this pin is to be associated
> > + * with.
> > + *
> > + * NOTE regarding vaddr_pin:
> > + *
> > + * Some callers can share pins via file descriptors to other processes.
> > + * Callers such as this should use the f_owner field of vaddr_pin to
> > indicate
> > + * the file the fd points to. All other callers should use the mm this
> > pin is
> > + * being made against. Usually "current->mm".
> > + *
> > + * Expects mmap_sem to be read locked.
> > + */
> > +long vaddr_pin_pages(unsigned long addr, unsigned long nr_pages,
> > + unsigned int gup_flags, struct page **pages,
> > + struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin)
> > +{
> > + long ret;
> > +
> > + gup_flags |= FOLL_LONGTERM;
>
>
> Is now the right time to introduce and use FOLL_PIN? If not, then I can always
> add it on top of this later, as part of gup-tracking patches. But you did
> point
> out that FOLL_LONGTERM is taking on additional meaning, and so maybe it's
> better
> to split that meaning up right from the start.
>
At one point I wanted to (and had in my tree) a new flag but I went away from
it. Prior to the discussion on mlock last week I did not think we needed it.
But I'm ok to add it back in.
I was not ignoring the idea for this RFC I just wanted to get this out there
for people to see. I see that you threw out a couple of patches which add this
flag in.
FWIW, I think it would be good to differentiate between an indefinite pinned
page vs a referenced "gotten" page.
What you and I have been working on is the former. So it would be easy to
change your refcounting patches to simply key off of FOLL_PIN.
Would you like me to add in your FOLL_PIN patches to this series?
>
> > +
> > + if (!vaddr_pin || (!vaddr_pin->mm && !vaddr_pin->f_owner))
> > + return -EINVAL;
> > +
> > + ret = __gup_longterm_locked(current,
> > + vaddr_pin->mm,
> > + addr, nr_pages,
> > + pages, NULL, gup_flags,
> > + vaddr_pin);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(vaddr_pin_pages);
> > +
> > +/**
> > + * vaddr_unpin_pages_dirty_lock - counterpart to vaddr_pin_pages
> > + *
> > + * @pages, array of pages returned
> > + * @nr_pages, number of pages in pages
> > + * @vaddr_pin, same information passed to vaddr_pin_pages
> > + * @make_dirty: whether to mark the pages dirty
> > + *
> > + * The semantics are similar to put_user_pages_dirty_lock but a vaddr_pin
> > used
> > + * in vaddr_pin_pages should be passed back into this call for propper
>
> Typo:
proper
Fixed.
>
> > + * tracking.
> > + */
> > +void vaddr_unpin_pages_dirty_lock(struct page **pages, unsigned long
> > nr_pages,
> > + struct vaddr_pin *vaddr_pin, bool make_dirty)
> > +{
> > + __put_user_pages_dirty_lock(vaddr_pin, pages, nr_pages, make_dirty);
> > +}
> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL(vaddr_unpin_pages_dirty_lock);
> >
>
> OK, whew, I'm glad to see the updated _dirty_lock() API used here. :)
Yea this was pretty easy to change during the rebase. Again I'm kind of
floating these quickly at this point. So sorry about the nits...
Ira
>
> thanks,
> --
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org
https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm
