On 10/27/20 6:15 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 10:33:01AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote:
On Fri 23-10-20 21:44:17, John Hubbard wrote:
On 10/23/20 5:19 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
+       start += (unsigned long)nr_pinned << PAGE_SHIFT;
+       pages += nr_pinned;
+       ret = __gup_longterm_unlocked(start, nr_pages - nr_pinned, gup_flags,
+                                     pages);
+       if (ret < 0) {
                /* Have to be a bit careful with return values */

...and can we move that comment up one level, so that it reads:

        /* Have to be a bit careful with return values */
        if (ret < 0) {
                if (nr_pinned)
                        return nr_pinned;
                return ret;
        }
        return ret + nr_pinned;

Thinking about this longer term, it would be nice if the whole gup/pup API
set just stopped pretending that anyone cares about partial success, because
they *don't*. If we had return values of "0 or -ERRNO" throughout, and an
additional set of API wrappers that did some sort of limited retry just like
some of the callers do, that would be a happier story.

Actually there are callers that care about partial success. See e.g.
iov_iter_get_pages() usage in fs/direct_io.c:dio_refill_pages() or
bio_iov_iter_get_pages(). These places handle partial success just fine and
not allowing partial success from GUP could regress things...

I looked through a bunch of call sites, and there are a wack that

So did I! :)

actually do only want a complete return and are carrying a bunch of
code to fix it:

        pvec = kvmalloc_array(npages, sizeof(struct page *), GFP_KERNEL);
        if (!pvec)
                return -ENOMEM;

        do {
                unsigned num_pages = npages - pinned;
                uint64_t ptr = userptr->ptr + pinned * PAGE_SIZE;
                struct page **pages = pvec + pinned;

                ret = pin_user_pages_fast(ptr, num_pages,
                                          !userptr->ro ? FOLL_WRITE : 0, pages);
                if (ret < 0) {
                        unpin_user_pages(pvec, pinned);
                        kvfree(pvec);
                        return ret;
                }

                pinned += ret;

        } while (pinned < npages);

Is really a lot better if written as:

        pvec = kvmalloc_array(npages, sizeof(struct page *), GFP_KERNEL);
        if (!pvec)
                return -ENOMEM;
        ret = pin_user_pages_fast(userptr->ptr, npages, FOLL_COMPLETE |
                                  (!userptr->ro ? FOLL_WRITE : 0),
                                  pvec);
         if (ret) {
               kvfree(pvec);
              return ret;
         }

(eg FOLL_COMPLETE says to return exactly npages or fail)


Yes, exactly. And if I reverse the polarity (to Christoph's FOLL_PARTIAL, 
instead
of FOLL_COMPLETE) it's even smaller, slightly. Which is where I am leaning now.



Some code assumes things work that way already anyhow:

        /* Pin user pages for DMA Xfer */
        err = pin_user_pages_unlocked(user_dma.uaddr, user_dma.page_count,
                        dma->map, FOLL_FORCE);

        if (user_dma.page_count != err) {
                IVTV_DEBUG_WARN("failed to map user pages, returned %d instead of 
%d\n",
                           err, user_dma.page_count);
                if (err >= 0) {
                        unpin_user_pages(dma->map, err);
                        return -EINVAL;
                }
                return err;
        }

Actually I'm quite surprised I didn't find too many missing the tricky
unpin_user_pages() on the error path - eg
videobuf_dma_init_user_locked() is wrong.


Well. That's not accidental. "Some People" (much thanks to Souptick Joarder, 
btw) have
been fixing up many of those sites, during the pin_user_pages() conversions. 
Otherwise
you would have found about 10 or 15 more.

I'll fix up that one above (using your Reported-by, I assume), unless someone 
else is
already taking care of it.


thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA

Reply via email to