[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4f47f3d4-1b00-e534-309c-7fb044337040@nvidia.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2018 23:25:31 -0800
From: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
CC: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<john.hubbard@...il.com>, Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>,
Christopher Lameter <cl@...ux.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>, <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-rdma <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
"Jerome Glisse" <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
"Ralph Campbell" <rcampbell@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] mm: introduce put_user_page*(), placeholder
versions
On 10/18/18 3:19 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 11-10-18 20:53:34, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 10/11/18 6:23 PM, John Hubbard wrote:
>>> On 10/11/18 6:20 AM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 10:49:29AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
[...]
> Well, put_page() cannot assert page is not dma-pinned as someone can still
> to get_page(), put_page() on dma-pinned page and that must not barf. But
> put_page() could assert that if the page is pinned, refcount is >=
> pincount. That will detect leaked pin references relatively quickly.
>
That assertion is definitely a life saver. I've been attempting a combination
of finishing up more call site conversions, and runtime testing, and this
lights up the missing conversions pretty nicely.
As I mentioned in another thread just now, I'll send out an updated RFC this week,
so that people can look through it well before the LPC (next week).
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
Powered by blists - more mailing lists