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;
Date:   Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:50:29 -0400
From:   Peter Xu <peterx@redhat.com>
To:     David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org,
        linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        liubo <liubo254@huawei.com>,
        Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>,
        Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>,
        Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>,
        John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>,
        Mel Gorman <mgorman@techsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] smaps / mm/gup: fix gup_can_follow_protnone
 fallout
Message-ID: <ZMQcBWvjVUEBU6mF@x1n>
References: <20230727212845.135673-1-david@redhat.com>
 <CAHk-=wiig=N75AGP7UAG9scmghWAqsTB5NRO6RiWLOB5YWfcTQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <eaa67cf6-4896-bb62-0899-ebdae8744c7a@redhat.com>
 <b647fd9a-3d75-625c-9f2c-dd3c251528c4@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b647fd9a-3d75-625c-9f2c-dd3c251528c4@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 09:40:54PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Hmm. So three alternatives I see:
> 
> 1) Use FOLL_FORCE in follow_page() to unconditionally disable protnone
>    checks. Alternatively, have an internal FOLL_NO_PROTNONE flag if we
>    don't like that.
> 
> 2) Revert the commit and reintroduce unconditional FOLL_NUMA without
>    FOLL_FORCE.
> 
> 3) Have a FOLL_NUMA that callers like KVM can pass.

I'm afraid 3) means changing numa balancing to opt-in, probably no-go for
any non-kvm gup users as that could start to break there, even if making
smaps/follow_page happy again.

I keep worrying 1) on FOLL_FORCE abuse.

So I keep my vote on 2).

Thanks,

-- 
Peter Xu