[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/3] mm/gup: Introduce get_user_pages_fast_longterm()
On 2/11/19 1:26 PM, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 01:13:56PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 2/11/19 12:39 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:16:42PM -0800, wrote:
>>>> From: Ira Weiny <>
>> [...]
>> It seems to me that the longterm vs. short-term is of questionable value.
> This is exactly why I did not post this before. I've been waiting our other
> discussions on how GUP pins are going to be handled to play out. But with the
> netdev thread today[1] it seems like we need to make sure we have a "safe" fast
> variant for a while. Introducing FOLL_LONGTERM seemed like the cleanest way to
> do that even if we will not need the distinction in the future... :-(

Yes, I agree. Below...

> [...]
> This is also why I did not change the get_user_pages_longterm because we could
> be ripping this all out by the end of the year... (I hope. :-)
> So while this does "pollute" the GUP family of calls I'm hoping it is not
> forever.
> Ira
> [1]

Yes, and to be clear, I think your patchset here is fine. It is easy to find
the FOLL_LONGTERM callers if and when we want to change anything. I just think
also it's appopriate to go a bit further, and use FOLL_LONGTERM all by itself.

That's because in either design outcome, it's better that way:

-- If we keep the concept of "I'm a long-term gup call site", then FOLL_LONGTERM
is just right. The gup API already has _fast and non-fast variants, and once
you get past a couple, you end up with a multiplication of names that really
work better as flags. We're there.

-- If we drop the concept, then you've already done part of the work, by removing
the _longterm API variants.

John Hubbard

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-11 22:40    [W:0.069 / U:4.628 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site