[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2083651.v4LkQjjfQp@nvdebian>
Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2021 16:20:52 +1100
From: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
CC: <linux-mm@...ck.org>, <nouveau@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
<bskeggs@...hat.com>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>, <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
<rcampbell@...dia.com>, <jglisse@...hat.com>, <hch@...radead.org>,
<daniel@...ll.ch>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access
On Tuesday, 2 March 2021 11:41:52 PM AEDT Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > However try_to_protect() scans the PTEs again under the PTL so checking
the
> > mapping of interest actually gets replaced during the rmap walk seems like
a
> > reasonable solution. Thanks for the comments.
>
> It does seem cleaner if you can manage it, the notifier will still be
> needd to program the HW though
Checking during the rmap walk wasn't hard but ultimately pointless. As you say
a range notifier and lock is required to program the hardware, which requires
checking the mappings with a mmu notifier sequence anyway.
- Alistair
Powered by blists - more mailing lists