2014-09-15 13:11-0700, Andres Lagar-Cavilla:
> +int kvm_get_user_page_retry(struct task_struct *tsk, struct mm_struct *mm,
The suffix '_retry' is not best suited for this.
On first reading, I imagined we will be retrying something from before,
possibly calling it in a loop, but we are actually doing the first and
last try in one call.
Hard to find something that conveys our lock-dropping mechanic,
'_polite' is my best candidate at the moment.
> + int flags = FOLL_TOUCH | FOLL_HWPOISON |
(FOLL_HWPOISON wasn't used before, but it's harmless.)
2014-09-16 15:51+0200, Paolo Bonzini:
> Il 15/09/2014 22:11, Andres Lagar-Cavilla ha scritto:
> > @@ -1177,9 +1210,15 @@ static int hva_to_pfn_slow(unsigned long addr, bool
> > *async, bool write_fault,
> > npages = get_user_page_nowait(current, current->mm,
> > addr, write_fault, page);
> > up_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem);
> > - } else
> > - npages = get_user_pages_fast(addr, 1, write_fault,
> > - page);
> > + } else {
> > + /*
> > + * By now we have tried gup_fast, and possible async_pf, and we
^
(If we really tried get_user_pages_fast, we wouldn't be here, so I'd
prepend two underscores here as well.)
> > + * are certainly not atomic. Time to retry the gup, allowing
> > + * mmap semaphore to be relinquished in the case of IO.
> > + */
> > + npages = kvm_get_user_page_retry(current, current->mm, addr,
> > + write_fault, page);
>
> This is a separate logical change. Was this:
>
> down_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
> npages = get_user_pages(NULL, mm, addr, 1, 1, 0, NULL, NULL);
> up_read(&mm->mmap_sem);
>
> the intention rather than get_user_pages_fast?
I believe so as well.
(Looking at get_user_pages_fast and __get_user_pages_fast made my
abstraction detector very sad.)
> I think a first patch should introduce kvm_get_user_page_retry ("Retry a
> fault after a gup with FOLL_NOWAIT.") and the second would add
> FOLL_TRIED ("This properly relinquishes mmap semaphore if the
> filemap/swap has to wait on page lock (and retries the gup to completion
> after that").
Not sure if that would help to understand the goal ...
> Apart from this, the patch looks good. The mm/ parts are minimal, so I
> think it's best to merge it through the KVM tree with someone's Acked-by.
I would prefer to have the last hunk in a separate patch, but still,
Acked-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrc...@redhat.com>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
