[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190816044448.GB4093@lst.de>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 06:44:48 +0200
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...lanox.com>
Cc: Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.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 Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 12:43:07AM +0000, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 04:51:33PM -0400, Jerome Glisse wrote:
>
> > struct page. In this case any way we can update the
> > nouveau_dmem_page() to check that page page->pgmap == the
> > expected pgmap.
>
> I was also wondering if that is a problem.. just blindly doing a
> container_of on the page->pgmap does seem like it assumes that only
> this driver is using DEVICE_PRIVATE.
>
> It seems like something missing in hmm_range_fault, it should be told
> what DEVICE_PRIVATE is acceptable to trigger HMM_PFN_DEVICE_PRIVATE
> and fault all others?
The whole device private handling in hmm and migrate_vma seems pretty
broken as far as I can tell, and I have some WIP patches. Basically we
should not touch (or possibly eventually call migrate to ram eventually
in the future) device private pages not owned by the caller, where I
try to defined the caller by the dev_pagemap_ops instance.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists