Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: set PG_dma_pinned on get_user_pages*()

[John Hubbard]

On 06/19/2018 06:57 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 6:34 PM, John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 06/19/2018 06:24 PM, Dan Williams wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:11 AM, John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> On 06/19/2018 03:41 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>> On Tue 19-06-18 02:02:55, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 10:29:49AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>>> [..]
>>>>> And then there's the aspect that both these approaches are a bit too
>>>>> heavyweight for some get_user_pages_fast() users (e.g. direct IO) - Al Viro
>>>>> had an idea to use page lock for that path but e.g. fs/direct-io.c would have
>>>>> problems due to lock ordering constraints (filesystem ->get_block would
>>>>> suddently get called with the page lock held). But we can probably leave
>>>>> performance optimizations for phase two.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So I assume that phase one would be to apply this approach only to
>>>> get_user_pages_longterm. (Please let me know if that's wrong.)
>>>
>>> I think that's wrong, because get_user_pages_longterm() is only a
>>> filesystem-dax avoidance mechanism, it's not trying to address all the
>>> problems that Jan is talking about. I don't see any viable half-step
>>> solutions.
>>>
>>
>> OK, but in that case, I'm slightly confused by Jan's comment above, about leaving
>> performance optimizations until phase two. Because that *is* a half-step approach:
>> phase one, phase two.
> 
> No, sorry, I might be confusing things. The half step is leaving
> truncate broken, or my strawman that only addressed unmap.
> 
>> Are you disagreeing with Jan, or are you suggesting "fix get_user_pages first, and
>> leave get_user_pages_fast alone for now?"
> 
> I'm agreeing with Jan, we need to fix page_mkclean() and
> try_to_unmap() without regressing truncate behavior.
> 

OK, perfect, thanks for clarifying.  It all sounds consistent now. :)