[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190816004053.GB9929@mellanox.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 00:40:59 +0000
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
To: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
CC: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Ben Skeggs <bskeggs@...hat.com>,
Felix Kuehling <Felix.Kuehling@....com>,
Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org" <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org" <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org" <amd-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 04/15] mm: remove the pgmap field from struct hmm_vma_walk
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 01:47:12PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:41 PM Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:33:06PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
> >
> > > So nor HMM nor driver should dereference the struct page (i do not
> > > think any iommu driver would either),
> >
> > Er, they do technically deref the struct page:
> >
> > nouveau_dmem_convert_pfn(struct nouveau_drm *drm,
> > struct hmm_range *range)
> > struct page *page;
> > page = hmm_pfn_to_page(range, range->pfns[i]);
> > if (!nouveau_dmem_page(drm, page)) {
> >
> >
> > nouveau_dmem_page(struct nouveau_drm *drm, struct page *page)
> > {
> > return is_device_private_page(page) && drm->dmem == page_to_dmem(page)
> >
> >
> > Which does touch 'page->pgmap'
> >
> > Is this OK without having a get_dev_pagemap() ?
> >
> > Noting that the collision-retry scheme doesn't protect anything here
> > as we can have a concurrent invalidation while doing the above deref.
>
> As long take_driver_page_table_lock() in Jerome's flow can replace
> percpu_ref_tryget_live() on the pagemap reference. It seems
> nouveau_dmem_convert_pfn() happens after:
>
> mutex_lock(&svmm->mutex);
> if (!nouveau_range_done(&range)) {
>
> ...so I would expect that to be functionally equivalent to validating
> the reference count.
Yes, OK, that makes sense, I was mostly surprised by the statement the
driver doesn't touch the struct page..
I suppose "doesn't touch the struct page out of the driver lock" is
the case.
However, this means we cannot do any processing of ZONE_DEVICE pages
outside the driver lock, so eg, doing any DMA map that might rely on
MEMORY_DEVICE_PCI_P2PDMA has to be done in the driver lock, which is
a bit unfortunate.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists