Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Fri, 7 May 2021 10:34:56 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>
Cc:     linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
        Kirill Shutemov <kirill@shutemov.name>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@nvidia.com>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>,
        Michal Hocko <mhocko@suse.com>,
        Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>, Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm: gup: pack has_pinned in MMF_HAS_PINNED
Message-ID: <YJVQEGSLil7wYhEe@t490s>
References: <20210506232537.165788-1-peterx@redhat.com>
 <20210506232537.165788-4-peterx@redhat.com>
 <69055843-185d-20ea-213b-10494a2f7246@nvidia.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <69055843-185d-20ea-213b-10494a2f7246@nvidia.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, May 06, 2021 at 11:42:59PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
> > +#define MMF_HAS_PINNED		28	/* FOLL_PIN has run, never cleared */
> 
> How about this instead, so that we effectively retain the comment block
> that is otherwise being deleted from mm.h:
> 
> /*
>  * MMF_HAS_PINNED: Whether this mm has pinned any pages.  This can be either
>  * replaced in the future by mm.pinned_vm when it becomes stable, or grow into a
>  * counter on its own. We're aggresive on this bit for now: even if the pinned
>  * pages were unpinned later on, we'll still keep this bit set for the lifecycle
>  * of this mm, just for simplicity.
>  */
> #define MMF_HAS_PINNED		28	/* FOLL_PIN ran. Never cleared. */

Sure, good to know the comment is still valid!

> > @@ -1292,8 +1292,8 @@ static __always_inline long __get_user_pages_locked(struct mm_struct *mm,
> >   		BUG_ON(*locked != 1);
> >   	}
> > -	if (flags & FOLL_PIN && !atomic_read(&mm->has_pinned))
> > -		atomic_set(&mm->has_pinned, 1);
> > +	if (flags & FOLL_PIN && !test_bit(MMF_HAS_PINNED, &mm->flags))
> > +		set_bit(MMF_HAS_PINNED, &mm->flags);
> 
> I expect this suggestion to be controversial, but I'm going to float it
> anyway. The above is a little less clear than it used to be, *and* it is
> in two places so far, so how about factoring out a tiny subroutine, like this:

Definitely less "controversial" than expected, isn't it? ;)

Thanks for the suggestion, it looks much better indeed.  Also I'll rename the
helper to mm_set_has_pinned_flag() as suggested by Matthew.

-- 
Peter Xu