From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lorenzo Stoakes Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: remove unnecessary __get_user_pages_unlocked() calls Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2016 00:46:31 +0100 Message-ID: <20161025234631.GA5946@lucifer> References: <20161025233609.5601-1-lstoakes@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Linus Torvalds , Michal Hocko , Jan Kara , Hugh Dickins , Dave Hansen , Rik van Riel , Mel Gorman , Andrew Morton , Paolo Bonzini , Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= , kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: linux-mm@kvack.org Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20161025233609.5601-1-lstoakes@gmail.com> Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org The holdout for unexporting __get_user_pages_unlocked() is its invocation in mm/process_vm_access.c: process_vm_rw_single_vec(), as this definitely _does_ seem to invoke VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour which get_user_pages_remote() will not trigger if we were to replace it with the latter. I'm not sure how to proceed in this case - get_user_pages_remote() invocations assume mmap_sem is held so can't offer VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour as the lock can't be assumed to be safe to release, and get_user_pages_unlocked() assumes tsk, mm are set to current, current->mm respectively so we can't use that here either. Is it important to retain VM_FAULT_RETRY behaviour here, does it matter? If it isn't so important then we can just go ahead and replace with get_user_pages_remote() and unexport away. Of course the whole idea of unexporting __get_user_pages_unlocked() might be bogus so let me know in that case also :) -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: email@kvack.org