Received: by 2002:ac0:bc90:0:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id a16csp15403img; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:26:43 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqybPcZxcjPnI9ZwErlzUOCy9jI3xvkvSWULS19p6bdQgY5QybiaiJBA3Wj87/N5Ak29tY76 X-Received: by 2002:a63:1749:: with SMTP id 9mr3704070pgx.94.1553030803798; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:26:43 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1553030803; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=HeeuRppG4quEQ8op1620EPK0uxMjnSrRhfWVSbafePrQsrkTLeWaOkoZ2lchpDhbJf TrZMySB2xPTH3MGpbxa18lr0yT9jYRUatwqxce7nmkHQYrdoX3hE51AiK4C2S9QaTtcM UQ2ziQFQM/nTBCA+PwgqduUC8fxj9oVHNZorX64lKWilAFi2KFGhv/0j5uJnCQyCDznf jmHQLFm5/0Ijp7wfiuTTsc9+O0QL2exUtAn8irFd+8Y3i01XWftE56v0Bn1LQltqXIC0 bVvGLF07FDv6fm+NlZpP5wXq0RjRfO5KlhOFiWqFbw5r+unH/gn/JLKE0l3nLHTTU1uu Y6Jg== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:sender:user-agent:in-reply-to :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date; bh=lMT8Mu84Fop6jiESGOrwJHIxx685RNT4YA1Ft7JSxZA=; b=0WQ0mX6jU1nFMFUbuCURzkyQDcQ3pQWa0FCPhlooEuigxbl512X3O+lF94m3+qg1w2 iRpeIEA/PXHs+xbIfxP+ntsHB7sviFo8i8ky0FYZIC4w1bdPT8SjivuNf+6tVmv1Ds8i u+fC7NOHV7tugaOEGof66kcwW0CvadwjTceHoPT9x2PBwKAKUzNqQ0loqeJCbHdOVkEc SAdLEdfenCjKLIrgXVtvNjCCjJsip88Z8X+8wwnm3PPRgDa6EDhoveRW+O0y++6KTTpO cw3sx9jvICliYTdiqAGAQRWxFkBVitVcLP+fRVzGvcymwnyV9K60YLEPA1EqghkltiHE /nyQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [209.132.180.67]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id gn8si72721plb.321.2019.03.19.14.26.24; Tue, 19 Mar 2019 14:26:43 -0700 (PDT) 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; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727433AbfCSVXx (ORCPT + 99 others); Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:23:53 -0400 Received: from ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.141]:12174 "EHLO ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726712AbfCSVXx (ORCPT ); Tue, 19 Mar 2019 17:23:53 -0400 Received: from ppp59-167-129-252.static.internode.on.net (HELO dastard) ([59.167.129.252]) by ipmail03.adl2.internode.on.net with ESMTP; 20 Mar 2019 07:53:49 +1030 Received: from dave by dastard with local (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1h6MD4-0003Pg-M8; Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:23:46 +1100 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 08:23:46 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Jerome Glisse Cc: "Kirill A. Shutemov" , john.hubbard@gmail.com, Andrew Morton , linux-mm@kvack.org, Al Viro , Christian Benvenuti , Christoph Hellwig , Christopher Lameter , Dan Williams , Dennis Dalessandro , Doug Ledford , Ira Weiny , Jan Kara , Jason Gunthorpe , Matthew Wilcox , Michal Hocko , Mike Rapoport , Mike Marciniszyn , Ralph Campbell , Tom Talpey , LKML , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, John Hubbard , Andrea Arcangeli Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/1] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions Message-ID: <20190319212346.GA26298@dastard> References: <20190308213633.28978-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20190308213633.28978-2-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20190319120417.yzormwjhaeuu7jpp@kshutemo-mobl1> <20190319134724.GB3437@redhat.com> <20190319141416.GA3879@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20190319141416.GA3879@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:14:16AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 09:47:24AM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 03:04:17PM +0300, Kirill A. Shutemov wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:36:33PM -0800, john.hubbard@gmail.com wrote: > > > > From: John Hubbard > > > > [...] > > > > > > diff --git a/mm/gup.c b/mm/gup.c > > > > index f84e22685aaa..37085b8163b1 100644 > > > > --- a/mm/gup.c > > > > +++ b/mm/gup.c > > > > @@ -28,6 +28,88 @@ struct follow_page_context { > > > > unsigned int page_mask; > > > > }; > > > > > > > > +typedef int (*set_dirty_func_t)(struct page *page); > > > > + > > > > +static void __put_user_pages_dirty(struct page **pages, > > > > + unsigned long npages, > > > > + set_dirty_func_t sdf) > > > > +{ > > > > + unsigned long index; > > > > + > > > > + for (index = 0; index < npages; index++) { > > > > + struct page *page = compound_head(pages[index]); > > > > + > > > > + if (!PageDirty(page)) > > > > + sdf(page); > > > > > > How is this safe? What prevents the page to be cleared under you? > > > > > > If it's safe to race clear_page_dirty*() it has to be stated explicitly > > > with a reason why. It's not very clear to me as it is. > > > > The PageDirty() optimization above is fine to race with clear the > > page flag as it means it is racing after a page_mkclean() and the > > GUP user is done with the page so page is about to be write back > > ie if (!PageDirty(page)) see the page as dirty and skip the sdf() > > call while a split second after TestClearPageDirty() happens then > > it means the racing clear is about to write back the page so all > > is fine (the page was dirty and it is being clear for write back). > > > > If it does call the sdf() while racing with write back then we > > just redirtied the page just like clear_page_dirty_for_io() would > > do if page_mkclean() failed so nothing harmful will come of that > > neither. Page stays dirty despite write back it just means that > > the page might be write back twice in a row. > > Forgot to mention one thing, we had a discussion with Andrea and Jan > about set_page_dirty() and Andrea had the good idea of maybe doing > the set_page_dirty() at GUP time (when GUP with write) not when the > GUP user calls put_page(). We can do that by setting the dirty bit > in the pte for instance. They are few bonus of doing things that way: > - amortize the cost of calling set_page_dirty() (ie one call for > GUP and page_mkclean() > - it is always safe to do so at GUP time (ie the pte has write > permission and thus the page is in correct state) > - safe from truncate race > - no need to ever lock the page I seem to have missed this conversation, so please excuse me for asking a stupid question: if it's a file backed page, what prevents background writeback from cleaning the dirty page ~30s into a long term pin? i.e. I don't see anything in this proposal that prevents the page from being cleaned by writeback and putting us straight back into the situation where a long term RDMA is writing to a clean page.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com