[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210119182200.GZ4605@ziepe.ca>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:22:00 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
To: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, vbabka@...e.cz, mhocko@...e.com,
david@...hat.com, osalvador@...e.de, dan.j.williams@...el.com,
sashal@...nel.org, tyhicks@...ux.microsoft.com,
iamjoonsoo.kim@....com, mike.kravetz@...cle.com,
rostedt@...dmis.org, mingo@...hat.com, peterz@...radead.org,
mgorman@...e.de, willy@...radead.org, rientjes@...gle.com,
jhubbard@...dia.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
ira.weiny@...el.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 04/14] mm/gup: check for isolation errors
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 11:39:10PM -0500, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> It is still possible that we pin movable CMA pages if there are isolation
> errors and cma_page_list stays empty when we check again.
>
> Check for isolation errors, and return success only when there are no
> isolation errors, and cma_page_list is empty after checking.
>
> Because isolation errors are transient, we retry indefinitely.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...een.com>
> ---
> mm/gup.c | 60 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------
> 1 file changed, 34 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
This should have a fixme too, this is a bug.
The patch looks OK, but I keep feeling this logic is all really
overcomplicated...
Reviewed-by: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists