Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions

[Matthew Wilcox]

On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 03:55:01PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:54:08PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:51:51AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:48:00PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:34:43AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > > No.  The solution John, Dan & I have been looking at is to take the
> > > > > > dirty page off the LRU while it is pinned by GUP.  It will never be
> > > > > > found for writeback.
> > > > > 
> > > > > With the solution you are proposing we loose GUP fast and we have to
> > > > > allocate a structure for each page that is under GUP, and the LRU
> > > > > changes too. Moreover by not writing back there is a greater chance
> > > > > of data loss.
> > > > 
> > > > Why can't you store the hmm_data in a side data structure?  Why does it
> > > > have to be in struct page?
> > > 
> > > hmm_data is not even the issue here, we can have a pincount without
> > > moving things around. So i do not see the need to complexify any of
> > > the existing code to add new structure and consume more memory for
> > > no good reasons. I do not see any benefit in that.
> > 
> > You said "we have to allocate a structure for each page that is under
> > GUP".  The only reason to do that is if we want to keep hmm_data in
> > struct page.  If we ditch hmm_data, there's no need to allocate a
> > structure, and we don't lose GUP fast either.
> 
> And i have propose a way that do not need to ditch hmm_data nor
> needs to remove page from the lru. What is it you do not like
> with that ?

I don't like bounce buffering.  I don't like "end of writeback doesn't
mark page as clean".  I don't like pages being on the LRU that aren't
actually removable.  I don't like writing pages back which we know we're
going to have to write back again.