From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2D4EC169C4 for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:22:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B01A6214DA for ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:22:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=nvidia.com header.i=@nvidia.com header.b="N+9Ixzzi" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727479AbfBKVWO (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:22:14 -0500 Received: from hqemgate15.nvidia.com ([216.228.121.64]:8920 "EHLO hqemgate15.nvidia.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727021AbfBKVWO (ORCPT ); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:22:14 -0500 Received: from hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com (Not Verified[216.228.121.13]) by hqemgate15.nvidia.com (using TLS: TLSv1.2, DES-CBC3-SHA) id ; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:21:38 -0800 Received: from hqmail.nvidia.com ([172.20.161.6]) by hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com (PGP Universal service); Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:22:12 -0800 X-PGP-Universal: processed; by hqpgpgate101.nvidia.com on Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:22:12 -0800 Received: from [10.110.48.28] (10.124.1.5) by HQMAIL101.nvidia.com (172.20.187.10) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1395.4; Mon, 11 Feb 2019 21:22:12 +0000 Subject: Re: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Discuss least bad options for resolving longterm-GUP usage by RDMA To: Ira Weiny , Jason Gunthorpe CC: Dan Williams , Jan Kara , Dave Chinner , Christopher Lameter , Doug Ledford , Matthew Wilcox , , linux-rdma , Linux MM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Jerome Glisse , Michal Hocko References: <0c868bc615a60c44d618fb0183fcbe0c418c7c83.camel@redhat.com> <01000168c8e2de6b-9ab820ed-38ad-469c-b210-60fcff8ea81c-000000@email.amazonses.com> <20190208044302.GA20493@dastard> <20190208111028.GD6353@quack2.suse.cz> <20190211102402.GF19029@quack2.suse.cz> <20190211180654.GB24692@ziepe.ca> <20190211181921.GA5526@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> From: John Hubbard X-Nvconfidentiality: public Message-ID: Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2019 13:22:11 -0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190211181921.GA5526@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com> X-Originating-IP: [10.124.1.5] X-ClientProxiedBy: HQMAIL108.nvidia.com (172.18.146.13) To HQMAIL101.nvidia.com (172.20.187.10) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Language: en-US-large Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=nvidia.com; s=n1; t=1549920098; bh=DjZRhIk6nj+66m80d2y4KoL4uboyuqGSUxmbuZ6C5i8=; h=X-PGP-Universal:Subject:To:CC:References:From:X-Nvconfidentiality: Message-ID:Date:User-Agent:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To: X-Originating-IP:X-ClientProxiedBy:Content-Type:Content-Language: Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=N+9IxzziTXqH/Fz777iPdO26xuw8ZbKxPM7kRnNSRVXNsIaFbmKoZMzMEpboec7Re ljo6HMwO8Y/66jKpjoOzBjlG+8bJ4sZ1YCHUYdZDEvpQZhKbUIDSUZ42zfweoclQJL XbP/TIVO642z/clG3ILn8hZwLlC/hjT/tXOaKiomlGbhpPbci1Mp/68A6pKpTZACeJ Tuj94uUpRl3BLr0QmejPoETKhVMg5B/ojN5UwwUvE2jSV2kzMZoraIiPobHIdalr/A SiLVhoepPUfMnPcdz/xQhlmXYrTYUVcB8GaSUXUijPb+o2kGWiuiGpFMPs35QJ6OG0 oazuwFxQPOUMw== Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2/11/19 10:19 AM, Ira Weiny wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 11:06:54AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 09:22:58AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote: [...] > John's patches will indicate to the FS that the page is gup pinned. But they > will not indicate longterm vs not "shorterm". A shortterm pin could be handled > as a "real truncate". So, are we back to needing a longterm "bit" in struct > page to indicate a longterm pin and allow the FS to perform this "virtual > write" after truncate? > > Or is it safe to consider all gup pinned pages this way? > > Ira > I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm not great at email threading. :) Anyway, it seems better to just drop the entire "longterm" concept from the internal APIs, and just deal in "it's either gup-pinned *at the moment*, or it's not". And let the filesystem respond appropriately. So for a pinned page that hits clear_page_dirty_for_io or whatever else care about pinned pages: -- fire mmu notifiers, revoke leases, generally do everything as if it were a long term gup pin -- if it's long term, then you've taken the right actions. -- if the pin really is short term, everything works great anyway. The only way that breaks is if longterm pins imply an irreversible action, such as blocking and waiting in a way that you can't back out of or get interrupted out of. And the design doesn't seem to be going in that direction, right? thanks, -- John Hubbard NVIDIA