Re: [PATCH v1 00/15] Keep track of GUPed pages in fs and block

[Boaz Harrosh <boaz@plexistor.com>]

On 16/04/19 21:47, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 09:35:04PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 05:08:19PM -0400, jglisse@redhat.com wrote:
>>> From: Jérôme Glisse <jglisse@redhat.com>
>>>
<>
>> Why do we need a bv_pfn. Why not just use the lowest bit of the page-ptr
>> as a flag (pointer always aligned to 64 bytes in our case).
>>
>> So yes we need an inline helper for reference of the page but is it not clearer
>> that we assume a page* and not any kind of pfn ?
>> It will not be the first place using low bits of a pointer for flags.
> 
> Yes i can use the lower bit of struct page * pointer it should be safe on
> all architecture. I wanted to change the bv_page field name to make sure
> that we catch anyone doing any direct dereference. Do you prefer keeping a
> page pointer there ?
> 

Yes I would prefer that personally.
Changing the name (And type to ulong) is a good idea, let the compiler check us.
But lets make sure we all understand this is a page pointer. And not any kind
of pfn.

>>
>> That said. Why we need it at all? I mean why not have it as a bio flag. If it exist
>> at all that a user has a GUP and none-GUP pages to IO at the same request he/she
>> can just submit them as two separate BIOs (chained at the block layer).
>>
>> Many users just submit one page bios and let elevator merge them any way.
> 
> The issue is that bio_vec is use, on its own, outside of bios and for
> those use cases i need to track the GUP status within the bio_vec. Thus
> it is easier to use the same mechanisms for bio too as adding a flag to
> bio would mean that i also have to audit all code path that could merge
> bios. While i believe it should be restrictred to block/blk-merge.c it
> seems some block and some fs have spawn some custom bio manipulation
> (md comes to mind). 

I would imagine they use mechanics as bio-split and bio-clone so it need
only be handled there. but ...

> So using same mechanism for bio_vec and bio seems
> like a safer and easier course of action.
> 

OK I get it thanks. I would imagine the opposite but I have not audited all
call sighs, if you say there are fewer bvec call sites then it makes sense.

> Cheers,
> Jérôme
> 

Thanks
Boaz