[PATCH v2 05/18] mm/gup: introduce pin_user_pages*() and FOLL_PIN

[Jerome Glisse]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2019 at 12:09:05PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> Jason, a question for you at the bottom.
> 
> On 11/4/19 11:52 AM, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> ...
> >> CASE 3: ODP
> >> -----------
> >> RDMA hardware with page faulting support. Here, a well-written driver doesn't
> > 
> > CASE3: Hardware with page fault support
> > ---------------------------------------
> > 
> > Here, a well-written ....
> > 
> 
> Ah, OK. So just drop the first sentence, yes.
> 
> ...
> >>>>>> +	 */
> >>>>>> +	gup_flags |= FOLL_REMOTE | FOLL_PIN;
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Wouldn't it be better to not add pin_longterm_pages_remote() until
> >>>>> it can be properly implemented ?
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Well, the problem is that I need each call site that requires FOLL_PIN
> >>>> to use a proper wrapper. It's the FOLL_PIN that is the focus here, because
> >>>> there is a hard, bright rule, which is: if and only if a caller sets
> >>>> FOLL_PIN, then the dma-page tracking happens, and put_user_page() must
> >>>> be called.
> >>>>
> >>>> So this leaves me with only two reasonable choices:
> >>>>
> >>>> a) Convert the call site as above: pin_longterm_pages_remote(), which sets
> >>>> FOLL_PIN (the key point!), and leaves the FOLL_LONGTERM situation exactly
> >>>> as it has been so far. When the FOLL_LONGTERM situation is fixed, the call
> >>>> site *might* not need any changes to adopt the working gup.c code.
> >>>>
> >>>> b) Convert the call site to pin_user_pages_remote(), which also sets
> >>>> FOLL_PIN, and also leaves the FOLL_LONGTERM situation exactly as before.
> >>>> There would also be a comment at the call site, to the effect of, "this
> >>>> is the wrong call to make: it really requires FOLL_LONGTERM behavior".
> >>>>
> >>>> When the FOLL_LONGTERM situation is fixed, the call site will need to be
> >>>> changed to pin_longterm_pages_remote().
> >>>>
> >>>> So you can probably see why I picked (a).
> >>>
> >>> But right now nobody has FOLL_LONGTERM and FOLL_REMOTE. So you should
> >>> never have the need for pin_longterm_pages_remote(). My fear is that
> >>> longterm has implication and it would be better to not drop this implication
> >>> by adding a wrapper that does not do what the name says.
> >>>
> >>> So do not introduce pin_longterm_pages_remote() until its first user
> >>> happens. This is option c)
> >>>
> >>
> >> Almost forgot, though: there is already another user: Infiniband:
> >>
> >> drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c:646:         npages = pin_longterm_pages_remote(owning_process, owning_mm,
> > 
> > odp do not need that, i thought the HMM convertion was already upstream
> > but seems not, in any case odp do not need the longterm case it only
> > so best is to revert that user to gup_fast or something until it get
> > converted to HMM.
> > 
> 
> Note for Jason: the (a) or (b) items are talking about the vfio case, which is
> one of the two call sites that now use pin_longterm_pages_remote(), and the
> other one is infiniband:
> 
> drivers/infiniband/core/umem_odp.c:646:         npages = pin_longterm_pages_remote(owning_process, owning_mm,
> drivers/vfio/vfio_iommu_type1.c:353:            ret = pin_longterm_pages_remote(NULL, mm, vaddr, 1,

vfio should be reverted until it can be properly implemented.
The issue is that when you fix the implementation you might
break vfio existing user and thus regress the kernel from user
point of view. So i rather have the change to vfio reverted,
i believe it was not well understood when it got upstream,
between in my 5.4 tree it is still gup_remote not longterm.


> Jerome, Jason: I really don't want to revert the put_page() to put_user_page() 
> conversions that are already throughout the IB driver--pointless churn, right?
> I'd rather either delete them in Jason's tree, or go with what I have here
> while waiting for the deletion.
> 
> Maybe we should just settle on (a) or (b), so that the IB driver ends up with
> the wrapper functions? In fact, if it's getting deleted, then I'd prefer leaving
> it at (a), since that's simple...
> 
> Jason should weigh in on how he wants this to go, with respect to branching
> and merging, since it sounds like that will conflict with the hmm branch 
> (ha, I'm overdue in reviewing his mmu notifier series, that's what I get for
> being late).
> 
> thanks,
> 
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA