Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] gup: introduce unpin_user_folio_dirty_locked()

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 18.06.25 13:36, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2025 at 02:28:20PM +0800, lizhe.67@bytedance.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 12:22:10 -0300, jgg@ziepe.ca wrote:
>>> +	while (npage) {
>>> +		long nr_pages = 1;
>>> +
>>> +		if (!is_invalid_reserved_pfn(pfn)) {
>>> +			struct page *page = pfn_to_page(pfn);
>>> +			struct folio *folio = page_folio(page);
>>> +			long folio_pages_num = folio_nr_pages(folio);
>>> +
>>> +			/*
>>> +			 * For a folio, it represents a physically
>>> +			 * contiguous set of bytes, and all of its pages
>>> +			 * share the same invalid/reserved state.
>>> +			 *
>>> +			 * Here, our PFNs are contiguous. Therefore, if we
>>> +			 * detect that the current PFN belongs to a large
>>> +			 * folio, we can batch the operations for the next
>>> +			 * nr_pages PFNs.
>>> +			 */
>>> +			if (folio_pages_num > 1)
>>> +				nr_pages = min_t(long, npage,
>>> +					folio_pages_num -
>>> +					folio_page_idx(folio, page));
>>> +
>>> +			unpin_user_folio_dirty_locked(folio, nr_pages,
>>> +					dma->prot & IOMMU_WRITE);
>>
>> Are you suggesting that we should directly call
>> unpin_user_page_range_dirty_lock() here (patch 3/3) instead?
> 
> I'm saying you should not have the word 'folio' inside the VFIO. You
> accumulate a contiguous range of pfns, by only checking the pfn, and
> then call
> 
> unpin_user_page_range_dirty_lock(pfn_to_page(first_pfn)...);
> 
> No need for any of this. vfio should never look at the struct page
> except as the last moment to pass the range.

Hah, agreed, that's actually simpler and there is no need to factor 
anything out.

-- 
Cheers,

David / dhildenb