[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190816122414.GC5412@mellanox.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2019 12:24:25 +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 08:54:46PM -0700, Dan Williams wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Wouldn't P2PDMA use page pins? Not needing to hold a lock over
> ZONE_DEVICE page operations was one of the motivations for plumbing
> get_dev_pagemap() with a percpu-ref.
hmm_range_fault() doesn't use page pins at all, so if a ZONE_DEVICE
page comes out of it then it needs to use another locking pattern.
If I follow it all right:
We can do a get_dev_pagemap inside the page_walk and touch the pgmap,
or we can do the 'device mutex && retry' pattern and touch the pgmap
in the driver, under that lock.
However in all cases the current get_dev_pagemap()'s in the page walk
are not necessary, and we can delete them.
?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists