lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Dec]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:59:22AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:54:08PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 11:51:51AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 02:48:00PM -0500, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 10:34:43AM -0800, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > > > No. The solution John, Dan & I have been looking at is to take the
> > > > > dirty page off the LRU while it is pinned by GUP. It will never be
> > > > > found for writeback.
> > > >
> > > > With the solution you are proposing we loose GUP fast and we have to
> > > > allocate a structure for each page that is under GUP, and the LRU
> > > > changes too. Moreover by not writing back there is a greater chance
> > > > of data loss.
> > >
> > > Why can't you store the hmm_data in a side data structure? Why does it
> > > have to be in struct page?
> >
> > hmm_data is not even the issue here, we can have a pincount without
> > moving things around. So i do not see the need to complexify any of
> > the existing code to add new structure and consume more memory for
> > no good reasons. I do not see any benefit in that.
>
> You said "we have to allocate a structure for each page that is under
> GUP". The only reason to do that is if we want to keep hmm_data in
> struct page. If we ditch hmm_data, there's no need to allocate a
> structure, and we don't lose GUP fast either.

And i have propose a way that do not need to ditch hmm_data nor
needs to remove page from the lru. What is it you do not like
with that ?

Cheers,
Jérôme

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-12-17 21:56    [W:0.127 / U:0.136 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site