[Intel-gfx] [PATCH 06/34] drm/i915: convert put_page() to put_user_page*()

[John Hubbard]

On 8/2/19 2:19 AM, Joonas Lahtinen wrote:
> Quoting john.hubbard at gmail.com (2019-08-02 05:19:37)
>> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard at nvidia.com>
>>
>> For pages that were retained via get_user_pages*(), release those pages
>> via the new put_user_page*() routines, instead of via put_page() or
>> release_pages().
>>
>> This is part a tree-wide conversion, as described in commit fc1d8e7cca2d
>> ("mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder versions").
>>
>> Note that this effectively changes the code's behavior in
>> i915_gem_userptr_put_pages(): it now calls set_page_dirty_lock(),
>> instead of set_page_dirty(). This is probably more accurate.
> 
> We've already fixed this in drm-tip where the current code uses
> set_page_dirty_lock().
> 
> This would conflict with our tree. Rodrigo is handling
> drm-intel-next for 5.4, so you guys want to coordinate how
> to merge.
> 

Hi Joonas, Rodrigo,

First of all, I apologize for the API breakage: put_user_pages_dirty_lock()
has an additional "dirty" parameter.

In order to deal with the merge problem, I'll drop this patch from my series,
and I'd recommend that the drm-intel-next take the following approach:

1) For now, s/put_page/put_user_page/ in i915_gem_userptr_put_pages(),
and fix up the set_page_dirty() --> set_page_dirty_lock() issue, like this
(based against linux.git):

diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c 
b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
index 528b61678334..94721cc0093b 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/i915/gem/i915_gem_userptr.c
@@ -664,10 +664,10 @@ i915_gem_userptr_put_pages(struct drm_i915_gem_object *obj,

         for_each_sgt_page(page, sgt_iter, pages) {
                 if (obj->mm.dirty)
-                       set_page_dirty(page);
+                       set_page_dirty_lock(page);

                 mark_page_accessed(page);
-               put_page(page);
+               put_user_page(page);
         }
         obj->mm.dirty = false;


That will leave you with your original set_page_dirty_lock() calls
and everything works properly.

2) Next cycle, move to the new put_user_pages_dirty_lock().

thanks,
-- 
John Hubbard
NVIDIA


> Regards, Joonas
>