[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jtVkptiFhiFP=2KXvDXs=Tw17pF=249sLj2fw-0vgsEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2015 12:54:05 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...ux.intel.com>,
Ross Zwisler <ross.zwisler@...ux.intel.com>,
mauricio.porto@....com, Linux MM <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org" <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] mm: Fix mmap MAP_POPULATE for DAX pmd mapping
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Toshi Kani <toshi.kani@....com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 11:57 -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
[..]
>> The whole point of __get_user_page_fast() is to avoid the overhead of
>> taking the mm semaphore to access the vma. _PAGE_SPECIAL simply tells
>> __get_user_pages_fast that it needs to fallback to the
>> __get_user_pages slow path.
>
> I see. Then, I think gup_huge_pmd() can simply return 0 when !pfn_valid(),
> instead of VM_BUG_ON.
Is pfn_valid() a reliable check? It seems to be based on a max_pfn
per node... what happens when pmem is located below that point. I
haven't been able to convince myself that we won't get false
positives, but maybe I'm missing something.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists