[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180503182656.GB14956@ziepe.ca>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2018 12:26:56 -0600
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Lidong Chen <jemmy858585@...il.com>, dledford@...hat.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, qing.huang@...cle.com,
artemyko@...lanox.com, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
adido@...lanox.com, galsha@...lanox.com, aviadye@...lanox.com,
Lidong Chen <lidongchen@...cent.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/umem: use tgid instead of pid in ib_umem structure
On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 09:12:35PM +0300, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 09:33:10AM -0600, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 03, 2018 at 10:04:34PM +0800, Lidong Chen wrote:
> > > The userspace may invoke ibv_reg_mr and ibv_dereg_mr by different threads.
> > > If when ibv_dereg_mr invoke and the thread which invoked ibv_reg_mr has
> > > exited, get_pid_task will return NULL, ib_umem_release does not decrease
> > > mm->pinned_vm. This patch fixes it by use tgid.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lidong Chen <lidongchen@...cent.com>
> > > drivers/infiniband/core/umem.c | 12 ++++++------
> > > include/rdma/ib_umem.h | 2 +-
> > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > Why are we even using a struct pid for this? Does anyone know?
> >
>
> Can it be related to "fork" support?
Not sure..
Ideally we want to hold the struct mm, but we can't hold it long
term, so pid is a surrogate for that.
> > I'm surprised that struct task isn't held in the struct ib_umem..
> >
>
> I think that this code can be removed and all accesses to mm_struct can
> be done with "current->mm".
That sounds wrong for fork support, as the mm used in destroy MUST
exactly match the mm used in create..
How does this accounting work in fork anyhow?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists