linux-kernel - 答复: 答复: 答复: [PATCH V2] vfio dma_map/unmap: optimized for hugetlbfs pages

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 1 Sep 2020 12:10:10 +0000
From:   "Maoming (maoming, Cloud Infrastructure Service Product Dept.)" 
        <maoming.maoming@...wei.com>
To:     Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>, Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "alex.williamson@...hat.com" <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
        "cohuck@...hat.com" <cohuck@...hat.com>,
        "Zhoujian (jay)" <jianjay.zhou@...wei.com>,
        "Huangweidong (C)" <weidong.huang@...wei.com>,
        "aarcange@...hat.com" <aarcange@...hat.com>,
        wangyunjian <wangyunjian@...wei.com>
Subject: 答复: 答复: 答复: [PATCH V2] vfio dma_map/unmap: optimized for hugetlbfs pages

> 
> On 2020/8/28 下午10:24, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 09:23:08AM +0000, Maoming (maoming, Cloud
> Infrastructure Service Product Dept.) wrote:
> >> In hugetlb_put_pfn(), I delete unpin_user_pages_dirty_lock() and use some
> simple code to put hugetlb pages.
> >> Is this right?
> > I think we should still use the APIs because of the the same reason.
> > However again I don't know the performance impact of that to your
> > patch, but I still think that could be done inside gup itself when
> > needed (e.g., a special path for hugetlbfs for [un]pinning continuous
> > pages; though if that's the case that could be something to be discussed on
> -mm then as a separate patch, imho).
> >
> > Thanks,
> 
> 
> +1, we should make this as a generic optimization instead of VFIO
> specific consider there're a lot of GUP users.
> 
> Thanks
> 


Thanks for your suggestions.
You are right, I will fix it in the next version.