[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAPcyv4jysxEu54XK2kUYnvTqUL7zf2fJvv7jWRR=P4Shy+3bOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2019 16:01:31 -0800
From: Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>
To: Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, KVM list <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Adam Borowski <kilobyte@...band.pl>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] KVM: MMU: Do not treat ZONE_DEVICE pages as being reserved
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 3:39 PM Sean Christopherson
<sean.j.christopherson@...el.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 06, 2019 at 03:20:11PM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > After some more thought I'd feel more comfortable just collapsing the
> > ZONE_DEVICE case into the VM_IO/VM_PFNMAP case. I.e. with something
> > like this (untested) that just drops the reference immediately and let
> > kvm_is_reserved_pfn() do the right thing going forward.
>
> This will break the page fault flow, as it will allow the page to be
> whacked before KVM can ensure it will get proper notification from the
> mmu_notifier. E.g. KVM would install the PFN in its secondary MMU after
> getting the invalidate notification for the PFN.
How do mmu notifiers get held off by page references and does that
machinery work with ZONE_DEVICE? Why is this not a concern for the
VM_IO and VM_PFNMAP case?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists