[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200617195807.GH76766@xz-x1>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2020 15:58:07 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Guo Ren <guoren@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Gerald Schaefer <gerald.schaefer@...ibm.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@...hat.com>,
linux-csky@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/25] mm/csky: Use mm_fault_accounting()
On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 10:53:23AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2020 at 8:49 AM Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com> wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it's a must, but mmap_sem should not be required at least by
> > observing current code. E.g., do_user_addr_fault() of x86 does the accounting
> > without mmap_sem even before this series.
>
> All the accounting should be per-thread and not need any locking.
>
> Which is why a remote GUP should never account to the remote mm - not
> only isn't there an unambiguous thread to account to (an mm can share
> many threads), but it would require locking not just for the remote
> update, but for all normal page faults.
But currently remote GUP will still do the page fault accounting on the remote
task_struct, am I right? E.g., when the get_user_pages_remote() is called with
"tsk != current", it seems the faultin_page() will still do maj_flt/min_flt
accounting for that remote task/thread?
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists