[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210309124609.GG2356281@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:46:09 -0400
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: "Zengtao (B)" <prime.zeng@...ilicon.com>
Cc: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>,
Alex Williamson <alex.williamson@...hat.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cohuck@...hat.com>,
Kevin Tian <kevin.tian@...el.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Giovanni Cabiddu <giovanni.cabiddu@...el.com>,
Michel Lespinasse <walken@...gle.com>,
Jann Horn <jannh@...gle.com>,
Max Gurtovoy <mgurtovoy@...dia.com>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: 答复: [PATCH] vfio/pci: make the
vfio_pci_mmap_fault reentrant
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:49:09AM +0000, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> Hi guys:
>
> Thanks for the helpful comments, after rethinking the issue, I have proposed
> the following change:
> 1. follow_pte instead of follow_pfn.
Still no on follow_pfn, you don't need it once you use vmf_insert_pfn
> 2. vmf_insert_pfn loops instead of io_remap_pfn_range
> 3. proper undos when some call fails.
> 4. keep the bigger lock range to avoid unessary pte install.
Why do we need locks at all here?
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists