Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 11 Feb 2019 16:25:10 -0700
From:   Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>
To:     Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Cc:     Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        linux-rdma <linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>,
        Daniel Borkmann <daniel@iogearbox.net>,
        Davidlohr Bueso <dave@stgolabs.net>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@intel.com>,
        Dennis Dalessandro <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>,
        Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@linux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] mm/gup: Introduce get_user_pages_fast_longterm()
Message-ID: <20190211232510.GP24692@ziepe.ca>
References: <20190211201643.7599-1-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20190211201643.7599-3-ira.weiny@intel.com>
 <20190211203916.GA2771@ziepe.ca>
 <bcc03ee1-4c42-48c3-bc67-942c0f04875e@nvidia.com>
 <20190211212652.GA7790@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <fc9c880b-24f8-7063-6094-00175bc27f7d@nvidia.com>
 <20190211215238.GA23825@iweiny-DESK2.sc.intel.com>
 <20190211220658.GH24692@ziepe.ca>
 <CAPcyv4htDHmH7PVm_=HOWwRKtpcKTPSjrHPLqhwp2vhBUWL4-w@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPcyv4htDHmH7PVm_=HOWwRKtpcKTPSjrHPLqhwp2vhBUWL4-w@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 02:55:10PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:

> > I also wonder if someone should think about making fast into a flag
> > too..
> >
> > But I'm not sure when fast should be used vs when it shouldn't :(
> 
> Effectively fast should always be used just in case the user cares
> about performance. It's just that it may fail and need to fall back to
> requiring the vma.

But the fall back / slow path is hidden inside the API, so when should
the caller care? 

ie when should the caller care to use gup_fast vs gup_unlocked? (the
comments say they are the same, but this seems to be a mistake)

Based on some of the comments in the code it looks like this API is
trying to convert itself into:

long get_user_pages_locked(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm,
                           unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
			   unsigned int gup_flags, struct page **pages,
			   struct vm_area_struct **vmas, bool *locked)

long get_user_pages_unlocked(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm,
                             unsigned long start, unsigned long nr_pages,
			     unsigned int gup_flags, struct page **pages)

(and maybe a FOLL_FAST if there is some reason we have _fast and
_unlocked)

The reason I ask, is that if there is no reason for fast vs unlocked
then maybe Ira should convert HFI to use gup_unlocked and move the
'fast' code into unlocked?

ie move incrementally closer to the desired end-state here.

Jason