Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <a1155107-fc3a-8098-187d-c2981981ea2f@collabora.com>
Date:   Tue, 8 Nov 2022 22:51:04 +0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.4.0
Cc:     Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
        Andrei Vagin <avagin@gmail.com>,
        Danylo Mocherniuk <mdanylo@google.com>,
        Alexander Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@google.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Christian Brauner <brauner@kernel.org>,
        Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>, Yang Shi <shy828301@gmail.com>,
        Vlastimil Babka <vbabka@suse.cz>,
        Zach O'Keefe <zokeefe@google.com>,
        "Matthew Wilcox (Oracle)" <willy@infradead.org>,
        "Gustavo A. R. Silva" <gustavoars@kernel.org>,
        Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>, kernel@collabora.com,
        Gabriel Krisman Bertazi <krisman@collabora.com>,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Peter Enderborg <peter.enderborg@sony.com>,
        "open list : KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>, Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list : PROC FILESYSTEM" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "open list : MEMORY MANAGEMENT" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 2/3] fs/proc/task_mmu: Implement IOCTL to get and/or
 the clear info about PTEs
To:     =?UTF-8?B?TWljaGHFgiBNaXJvc8WCYXc=?= <emmir@google.com>
References: <20221103145353.3049303-1-usama.anjum@collabora.com>
 <20221103145353.3049303-3-usama.anjum@collabora.com>
 <CABb0KFFaYZG62TS+iM3Y92+hDyB35XR8dTX-5hDgWrXCcDQx7Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <f394de31-b9c1-5a6c-eab2-74b84f2b3ba3@collabora.com>
 <CABb0KFGbhM8V6qeDEzq7Lc_3cseScbK3zvfLndRdJfLstTO=2g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From:   Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABb0KFGbhM8V6qeDEzq7Lc_3cseScbK3zvfLndRdJfLstTO=2g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

On 11/8/22 9:00 PM, Michał Mirosław wrote:
>>>> + * @start:             Starting address of the region
>>>> + * @len:               Length of the region (All the pages in this length are included)
>>>> + * @vec:               Address of page_region struct array for output
>>>> + * @vec_len:           Length of the page_region struct array
>>>> + * @max_pages:         Optional max return pages (It must be less than vec_len if specified)
>>> I think we discussed that this is not counting the same things as
>>> vec_len, so there should not be a reference between the two. The limit
>>> is whatever fits under both conditions (IOW: n_vecs <= vec_len &&
>>> (!max_pages || n_pages <= max_pages).
>> In worse case when pages cannot be folded into the page_region, the one
>> page_region may have information of only one page. This is why I've
>> compared them. I want to communicate to the user that if max_pages is
>> used, the vec_len should be of equal or greater size (to cater worse
>> case which can happen at any time). Otherwise in worse case, the api can
>> return without finding the max_pages number of pages. I don't know how
>> should I put this in the comment.
> I'm not sure you need to, as this conclusion follows from the range vs
> page distinction.
> A user who wants to cater for the worst case will provide big-enough
> `vec` array, but another, who might be memory-constrained, could
> instead just retry the call with `start` updated to just after the
> last returned page until the ioctl() returns less ranges than
> `vec_len` allows.
Makes sense. I'll update and send next revision.

Thanks,
Usama
> 
> Best Regards
> Michał Mirosław