Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags

2016-10-20 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 19-10-16 10:23:55, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 10/19/2016 10:01 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > The question I had earlier was whether this has to be an explicit FOLL > > flag used by g-u-p users or we can just use it internally when mm != > > current->mm > > The reason I chose not to do that was

Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags

2016-10-19 Thread Dave Hansen
On 10/19/2016 10:01 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > The question I had earlier was whether this has to be an explicit FOLL > flag used by g-u-p users or we can just use it internally when mm != > current->mm The reason I chose not to do that was that deferred work gets run under a basically random

Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags

2016-10-19 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 19-10-16 09:49:43, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 10/19/2016 02:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > > On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > >>> I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to > >>> me

Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags

2016-10-19 Thread Dave Hansen
On 10/19/2016 02:07 AM, Michal Hocko wrote: > On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: >>> I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to >>> me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in

Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags

2016-10-19 Thread Michal Hocko
On Wed 19-10-16 09:58:15, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > > I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to > > me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check > > mm != current->mm and imply

Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags

2016-10-19 Thread Lorenzo Stoakes
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote: > I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to > me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check > mm != current->mm and imply that. Maybe there are some contexts which > wouldn't work, I

Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags

2016-10-18 Thread Michal Hocko
On Thu 13-10-16 01:20:10, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote: > This patch series adjusts functions in the get_user_pages* family such that > desired FOLL_* flags are passed as an argument rather than implied by flags. > > The purpose of this change is to make the use of FOLL_FORCE explicit so it is > easier

Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags

2016-10-13 Thread Christian König
Am 13.10.2016 um 02:20 schrieb Lorenzo Stoakes: This patch series adjusts functions in the get_user_pages* family such that desired FOLL_* flags are passed as an argument rather than implied by flags. The purpose of this change is to make the use of FOLL_FORCE explicit so it is easier to grep