On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 05:30:50PM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
>I am wondering whether we can go further. E.g. it is not really clear to
>me whether we need an explicit FOLL_REMOTE when we can in fact check
>mm != current->mm and imply that. Maybe there are some contexts which
>wouldn't work, I haven't checked.
>
>Then I am also wondering about FOLL_TOUCH behavior.
>__get_user_pages_unlocked has only few callers which used to be
>get_user_pages_unlocked before 1e9877902dc7e ("mm/gup: Introduce
>get_user_pages_remote()"). To me a dropped FOLL_TOUCH seems
>unintentional. Now that get_user_pages_unlocked has gup_flags argument I
>guess we might want to get rid of the __g-u-p-u version altogether, no?
>
>__get_user_pages is quite low level and imho shouldn't be exported. It's
>only user - kvm - should rather pull those two functions to gup instead
>and export them. There is nothing really KVM specific in them.I believe I've attacked each of these, other than the use of explicit FOLL_REMOTE which was explained by Dave. > I also cannot say I would be entirely thrilled about get_user_pages_locked, > we only have one user which can simply do lock g-u-p unlock AFAICS. The principle difference here seems to be the availability of VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour (by passing a non-NULL locked argument), and indeed the comments in gup.c recommends using get_user_pages_locked() if possible (though it seems not to have been heeded too much :), so I'm not sure if this would be a fruitful refactor, let me know!
