| Re: [PATCH 0/6] fuse: allocate req->pages[] dynamically [message #47847 is a reply to message #47842] |
Fri, 14 September 2012 14:39  |
Miklos Szeredi
Messages: 161
Registered: April 2007
|
Senior Member |
|
|
"Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@parallels.com> writes:
> Hi Miklos,
>
> 09/12/2012 08:49 PM, Miklos Szeredi пишет:
>> "Maxim V. Patlasov" <mpatlasov@parallels.com> writes:
>>
>>> Hi Miklos,
>>>
>>> So far as no objections appeared, I'll go ahead and replace fuse req->page with
>>> req->pagevec. It will point to an array of structs:
>>>
>>> struct page_vec {
>>> struct page *pv_page;
>>> unsigned int pv_len;
>>> unsigned int pv_offset;
>>> };
>>>
>>> instead of 'struct page *' as it used to be. It seems to be what you suggested
>>> in one of your comments. Are you OK about it?
>> Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking.
>
> I've encountered a problem while trying to follow this
> approach. fuse_get_user_pages() passes 'req->pages' to
> get_user_pages_fast(). get_user_pages_fast() and friends are not ready to get a
> pointer to array of page_vec-s from fuse. I can see five ways to solve the
> problem:
>
> 1. Re-work get_user_pages_fast() and friends adding ability to fill page_vec
> array. Too much work. Very ugly. I strongly dislike this way.
>
> 2. Allocate a temporary array of page pointers in fuse_get_user_pages() to use
> as argument to get_user_pages_fast(). Ugly and may have performance impact. I
> dislike this way too.
>
> 3. Call get_user_pages_fast() for each page (i.e. pass npages == 1 to it). Easy
> to implement but may have performance impact. I'd refrain from it.
>
> 4. Keep req->pages 'as is', but add req->page_descs pointing to an array of
> <offset, len> structures. Looks clumsy, straightforward, but quite
> doable.
>
> 5. Use a hack in fuse_get_user_pages(): temporarily cast req->pagevecs to
> struct page **pages', pass it get_user_pages_fast(), then transform the content
> of req->pagevecs[] to have page pointers stored in proper places (like 'for
> (i=...) pagevecs[i].pv_page = pages[i];').
>
> What do you think?
I'd go for number 4.
Thanks,
Miklos
|
|
|
|
OpenVZ Forum
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
