Re: [PATCH 4/5] bio: introduce BIO_FOLL_PIN flag

[John Hubbard]

On 8/22/20 11:57 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 8/22/20 11:25 PM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 21, 2020 at 09:20:58PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > > Add a new BIO_FOLL_PIN flag to struct bio, whose "short int" flags field
> > > was full, thuse triggering an expansion of the field from 16, to 32
> > > bits. This allows for a nice assertion in bio_release_pages(), that the
> > > bio page release mechanism matches the page acquisition mechanism.
> > >
> > > Set BIO_FOLL_PIN whenever pin_user_pages_fast() is used, and check for
> > > BIO_FOLL_PIN before using unpin_user_page().
> >
> > When would the flag not be set when BIO_NO_PAGE_REF is not set?
>
> Well, I don't *think* you can get there. However, I've only been studying
> bio/block for a fairly short time, and the scattering of get_page() and
> put_page() calls in some of the paths made me wonder if, for example,
> someone was using get_page() to acquire ITER_BVEC or ITER_KVEC via
> get_page(), and release them via bio_release_pages(). It's hard to tell.
>
> It seems like that shouldn't be part of the design. I'm asserting that
> it isn't, with this new flag. But if you're sure that this assertion is
> unnecessary, then let's just drop this patch, of course.

Also, I should have done a few more subsystem conversions, before
concluding that BIO_FOLL_PIN was a good idea. Now, as I'm working through mopping
up those other subsystems, I see that nfs/direct.c for example does not have access
to a bio instance, and so the whole thing is not really a great move, at least not
for adding to the iov_iter_pin_user_pages*() APIs.

Let's just drop this patch, after all.


thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA