[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180618075650.GA7300@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 00:56:50 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: john.hubbard@...il.com
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] mm: set PG_dma_pinned on get_user_pages*()
On Sat, Jun 16, 2018 at 06:25:10PM -0700, john.hubbard@...il.com wrote:
> From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
>
> This fixes a few problems that come up when using devices (NICs, GPUs,
> for example) that want to have direct access to a chunk of system (CPU)
> memory, so that they can DMA to/from that memory. Problems [1] come up
> if that memory is backed by persistence storage; for example, an ext4
> file system. I've been working on several customer bugs that are hitting
> this, and this patchset fixes those bugs.
What happens if we do get_user_page from two different threads or even
processes on the same page? As far as I can tell from your patch
the first one finishing the page will clear the bit and then we are
back to no protection.
Note that you can reproduce such a condition trivially using direct
I/O reads or writes.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists