[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200116141311.GB10759@ziepe.ca>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 10:13:11 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Ralph Campbell <rcampbell@...dia.com>
Cc: "linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-mm@...ck.org" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Jerome Glisse <jglisse@...hat.com>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/2] mm/mmu_notifier: make interval notifier updates
safe
On Wed, Jan 15, 2020 at 02:04:47PM -0800, Ralph Campbell wrote:
> But I see your point if this sequence is done outside of the invalidate
> callback. In that case, if the driver shrank the interval, an invalidate
> callback for the right hand side could be missed before the insertion of
> the new interval for the right hand side.
> I'll explain this in the comments for nouveau_svmm_do_unmap() and
> dmirror_do_unmap().
Yes, this is why I'm not sure this is a good API for the core to
expose.
Batch manipulations is a resonable thing, but it should be forced to
work under safe conditions, ie while holding the required 'inv_begin'
on the interval tree, and the batching APIs should assert this
requirement.
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists