2019-08-04 03:24:08

by Calum Mackay

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/34] nfs: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

On 02/08/2019 3:20 am, [email protected] wrote:
> From: John Hubbard <[email protected]>
>
> For pages that were retained via get_user_pages*(), release those pages
> via the new put_user_page*() routines, instead of via put_page() or
> release_pages().
>
> This is part a tree-wide conversion, as described in commit fc1d8e7cca2d
> ("mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions").
>
> Cc: Trond Myklebust <[email protected]>
> Cc: Anna Schumaker <[email protected]>
> Cc: [email protected]
> Signed-off-by: John Hubbard <[email protected]>
> ---
> fs/nfs/direct.c | 4 +---
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/direct.c b/fs/nfs/direct.c
> index 0cb442406168..b00b89dda3c5 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/direct.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/direct.c
> @@ -278,9 +278,7 @@ ssize_t nfs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>
> static void nfs_direct_release_pages(struct page **pages, unsigned int npages)
> {
> - unsigned int i;
> - for (i = 0; i < npages; i++)
> - put_page(pages[i]);
> + put_user_pages(pages, npages);
> }

Since it's static, and only called twice, might it be better to change
its two callers [nfs_direct_{read,write}_schedule_iovec()] to call
put_user_pages() directly, and remove nfs_direct_release_pages() entirely?

thanks,
calum.


>
> void nfs_init_cinfo_from_dreq(struct nfs_commit_info *cinfo,
>


2019-08-04 03:24:58

by John Hubbard

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/34] nfs: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

On 8/2/19 6:27 PM, Calum Mackay wrote:
> On 02/08/2019 3:20 am, [email protected] wrote:
...
> Since it's static, and only called twice, might it be better to change its two callers [nfs_direct_{read,write}_schedule_iovec()] to call put_user_pages() directly, and remove nfs_direct_release_pages() entirely?
>
> thanks,
> calum.
>
>
>>     void nfs_init_cinfo_from_dreq(struct nfs_commit_info *cinfo,
>>

Hi Calum,

Absolutely! Is it OK to add your reviewed-by, with the following incremental
patch made to this one?

diff --git a/fs/nfs/direct.c b/fs/nfs/direct.c
index b00b89dda3c5..c0c1b9f2c069 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/direct.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/direct.c
@@ -276,11 +276,6 @@ ssize_t nfs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
return nfs_file_direct_write(iocb, iter);
}

-static void nfs_direct_release_pages(struct page **pages, unsigned int npages)
-{
- put_user_pages(pages, npages);
-}
-
void nfs_init_cinfo_from_dreq(struct nfs_commit_info *cinfo,
struct nfs_direct_req *dreq)
{
@@ -510,7 +505,7 @@ static ssize_t nfs_direct_read_schedule_iovec(struct nfs_direct_req *dreq,
pos += req_len;
dreq->bytes_left -= req_len;
}
- nfs_direct_release_pages(pagevec, npages);
+ put_user_pages(pagevec, npages);
kvfree(pagevec);
if (result < 0)
break;
@@ -933,7 +928,7 @@ static ssize_t nfs_direct_write_schedule_iovec(struct nfs_direct_req *dreq,
pos += req_len;
dreq->bytes_left -= req_len;
}
- nfs_direct_release_pages(pagevec, npages);
+ put_user_pages(pagevec, npages);
kvfree(pagevec);
if (result < 0)
break;



thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

2019-08-04 23:30:28

by Calum Mackay

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: [PATCH 31/34] nfs: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

On 03/08/2019 2:41 am, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 8/2/19 6:27 PM, Calum Mackay wrote:
>> On 02/08/2019 3:20 am, [email protected] wrote:
> ...
>> Since it's static, and only called twice, might it be better to change its two callers [nfs_direct_{read,write}_schedule_iovec()] to call put_user_pages() directly, and remove nfs_direct_release_pages() entirely?
>>
>> thanks,
>> calum.
>>
>>
>>>     void nfs_init_cinfo_from_dreq(struct nfs_commit_info *cinfo,
>>>
>
> Hi Calum,
>
> Absolutely! Is it OK to add your reviewed-by, with the following incremental
> patch made to this one?

Thanks John; looks good.

Reviewed-by: Calum Mackay <[email protected]>

>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/direct.c b/fs/nfs/direct.c
> index b00b89dda3c5..c0c1b9f2c069 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/direct.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/direct.c
> @@ -276,11 +276,6 @@ ssize_t nfs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
> return nfs_file_direct_write(iocb, iter);
> }
>
> -static void nfs_direct_release_pages(struct page **pages, unsigned int npages)
> -{
> - put_user_pages(pages, npages);
> -}
> -
> void nfs_init_cinfo_from_dreq(struct nfs_commit_info *cinfo,
> struct nfs_direct_req *dreq)
> {
> @@ -510,7 +505,7 @@ static ssize_t nfs_direct_read_schedule_iovec(struct nfs_direct_req *dreq,
> pos += req_len;
> dreq->bytes_left -= req_len;
> }
> - nfs_direct_release_pages(pagevec, npages);
> + put_user_pages(pagevec, npages);
> kvfree(pagevec);
> if (result < 0)
> break;
> @@ -933,7 +928,7 @@ static ssize_t nfs_direct_write_schedule_iovec(struct nfs_direct_req *dreq,
> pos += req_len;
> dreq->bytes_left -= req_len;
> }
> - nfs_direct_release_pages(pagevec, npages);
> + put_user_pages(pagevec, npages);
> kvfree(pagevec);
> if (result < 0)
> break;
>
>
>
> thanks,
>