RE: [PATCH 0/3] Add gup fast + longterm and use it in HFI1

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 01:42:57PM -0800, Ira Weiny wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 01:47:10PM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:

quoted

On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 12:34:17PM -0800, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 11 Feb 2019, ira.weiny@intel.com wrote:

quoted

Ira Weiny (3):
 mm/gup: Change "write" parameter to flags
 mm/gup: Introduce get_user_pages_fast_longterm()
 IB/HFI1: Use new get_user_pages_fast_longterm()

Out of curiosity, are you planning on having all rdma drivers use
get_user_pages_fast_longterm()? Ie:

hw/mthca/mthca_memfree.c:       ret = get_user_pages_fast(uaddr &

PAGE_MASK, 1, FOLL_WRITE, pages);

quoted

quoted

This one is certainly a mistake - this should be done with a umem.

It looks like this is mapping a page allocated by user space for a
doorbell?!?!

Many drivers do this, the 'doorbell' is a PCI -> CPU thing of some sort

My surprise is why does _userspace_ allocate this memory?

quoted

This does not seem to be allocating memory regions.  Jason, do you
want a patch to just convert these calls and consider it legacy code?

It needs to use umem like all the other drivers on this path.
Otherwise it doesn't get the page pinning logic right

Not sure what you mean regarding the pinning logic?

There is also something else rotten with these longterm callsites, they seem
to have very different ideas how to handle RLIMIT_MEMLOCK.

ie vfio doesn't even touch pinned_vm.. and rdma is applying
RLIMIT_MEMLOCK to mm->pinned_vm, while vfio is using locked_vm.. No
idea which is right, but they should be the same, and this pattern should
probably be in core code someplace.

Neither do I.  But AFAIK pinned_vm is a subset of locked_vm.

So should we be accounting both of the counters?

Ira