From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <owner-linux-mm@kvack.org>
Received: from mail-ot1-f70.google.com (mail-ot1-f70.google.com [209.85.210.70])
	by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C49BC6B708E
	for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue,  4 Dec 2018 15:29:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: by mail-ot1-f70.google.com with SMTP id q11so8069136otl.23
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>; Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:29:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-sor-f65.google.com (mail-sor-f65.google.com. [209.85.220.65])
        by mx.google.com with SMTPS id 1sor10527993oie.20.2018.12.04.12.29.10
        for <linux-mm@kvack.org>
        (Google Transport Security);
        Tue, 04 Dec 2018 12:29:10 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20181204001720.26138-1-jhubbard@nvidia.com> <20181204001720.26138-2-jhubbard@nvidia.com>
In-Reply-To: <20181204001720.26138-2-jhubbard@nvidia.com>
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2018 12:28:59 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4h99JVHAS7Q7k3iPPUq+oc1NxHdyBHMjpgyesF1EjVfWA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org
List-ID: <linux-mm.kvack.org>
To: John Hubbard <john.hubbard@gmail.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, Linux MM <linux-mm@kvack.org>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, tom@talpey.com, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>, benve@cisco.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, Christopher Lameter <cl@linux.com>, "Dalessandro, Dennis" <dennis.dalessandro@intel.com>, Doug Ledford <dledford@redhat.com>, Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@ziepe.ca>, =?UTF-8?B?SsOpcsO0bWUgR2xpc3Nl?= <jglisse@redhat.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org>, Michal Hocko <mhocko@kernel.org>, mike.marciniszyn@intel.com, rcampbell@nvidia.com, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>, John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>

On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 4:17 PM <john.hubbard@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@nvidia.com>
>
> Introduces put_user_page(), which simply calls put_page().
> This provides a way to update all get_user_pages*() callers,
> so that they call put_user_page(), instead of put_page().
>
> Also introduces put_user_pages(), and a few dirty/locked variations,
> as a replacement for release_pages(), and also as a replacement
> for open-coded loops that release multiple pages.
> These may be used for subsequent performance improvements,
> via batching of pages to be released.
>
> This is the first step of fixing the problem described in [1]. The steps
> are:
>
> 1) (This patch): provide put_user_page*() routines, intended to be used
>    for releasing pages that were pinned via get_user_pages*().
>
> 2) Convert all of the call sites for get_user_pages*(), to
>    invoke put_user_page*(), instead of put_page(). This involves dozens of
>    call sites, and will take some time.
>
> 3) After (2) is complete, use get_user_pages*() and put_user_page*() to
>    implement tracking of these pages. This tracking will be separate from
>    the existing struct page refcounting.
>
> 4) Use the tracking and identification of these pages, to implement
>    special handling (especially in writeback paths) when the pages are
>    backed by a filesystem. Again, [1] provides details as to why that is
>    desirable.

I thought at Plumbers we talked about using a page bit to tag pages
that have had their reference count elevated by get_user_pages()? That
way there is no need to distinguish put_page() from put_user_page() it
just happens internally to put_page(). At the conference Matthew was
offering to free up a page bit for this purpose.

> [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/753027/ : "The Trouble with get_user_pages()"
>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Wish, you could have been there Jan. I'm missing why it's safe to
assume that a single put_user_page() is paired with a get_user_page()?