On 3/4/19 3:11 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
> On 3/3/19 8:55 AM, Ira Weiny wrote:
>> On Sun, Mar 03, 2019 at 11:52:41AM +0200, Artemy Kovalyov wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 02/03/2019 21:44, Ira Weiny wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 02, 2019 at 12:24:35PM -0800, john.hubb...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> From: John Hubbard <jhubb...@nvidia.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 3. Dead code removal: the check for (user_virt & ~page_mask)
>>>>> is checking for a condition that can never happen,
>>>>> because earlier:
>>>>>
>>>>> user_virt = user_virt & page_mask;
>>>>>
>>>>> ...so, remove that entire phrase.
>>>>>
>>>>> bcnt -= min_t(size_t, npages << PAGE_SHIFT, bcnt);
>>>>> mutex_lock(&umem_odp->umem_mutex);
>>>>> for (j = 0; j < npages; j++, user_virt += PAGE_SIZE) {
>>>>> - if (user_virt & ~page_mask) {
>>>>> - p += PAGE_SIZE;
>>>>> - if (page_to_phys(local_page_list[j]) != p) {
>>>>> - ret = -EFAULT;
>>>>> - break;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> - put_page(local_page_list[j]);
>>>>> - continue;
>>>>> - }
>>>>> -
>>>>
>>>> I think this is trying to account for compound pages. (ie page_mask could
>>>> represent more than PAGE_SIZE which is what user_virt is being incrimented
>>>> by.)
>>>> But putting the page in that case seems to be the wrong thing to do?
>>>>
>>>> Yes this was added by Artemy[1] now cc'ed.
>>>
>>> Right, this is for huge pages, please keep it.
>>> put_page() needed to decrement refcount of the head page.
>>
>> You mean decrement the refcount of the _non_-head pages?
>>
>> Ira
>>
>
> Actually, I'm sure Artemy means head page, because put_page() always
> operates on the head page.
>
> And this reminds me that I have a problem to solve nearby: get_user_pages
> on huge pages increments the page->_refcount *for each tail page* as well.
> That's a minor problem for my put_user_page()
> patchset, because my approach so far assumed that I could just change us
> over to:
>
> get_user_page(): increments page->_refcount by a large amount (1024)
>
> put_user_page(): decrements page->_refcount by a large amount (1024)
>
> ...and just stop doing the odd (to me) technique of incrementing once for
> each tail page. I cannot see any reason why that's actually required, as
> opposed to just "raise the page->_refcount enough to avoid losing the head
> page too soon".
>
> However, it may be tricky to do this in one pass. Probably at first, I'll have
> to do this horrible thing approach:
>
> get_user_page(): increments page->_refcount by a large amount (1024)
>
> put_user_page(): decrements page->_refcount by a large amount (1024)
> MULTIPLIED
> by the number of tail pages. argghhh that's ugly.
>
I see that this is still not stated quite right.
...to clarify, I mean to leave the existing behavior alone. So it would be
the call sites (not put_user_page as the above says) that would be doing all
that decrementing. The call sites know how many decrements are appropriate.
Unless someone thinks of a clever way to clean this up in one shot. I'm not
really seeing any way.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
