[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210518173334.GE1002214@nvidia.com>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2021 14:33:34 -0300
From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
To: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
Cc: Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>, 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, willy@...radead.org,
bsingharora@...il.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access
On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 01:27:42PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> I also have a pure and high level question regarding a process fork() when
> there're device exclusive ptes: would the two processes then own the device
> together? Is this a real usecase?
If the pages are MAP_SHARED then yes. All VMAs should point at the
same device_exclusive page and all VMA should migrate back to CPU
pages together.
> Indeed it'll be odd for a COW page since for COW page then it means after
> parent/child writting to the page it'll clone into two, then it's a mistery on
> which one will be the one that "exclusived owned" by the device..
For COW pages it is like every other fork case.. We can't reliably
write-protect the device_exclusive page during fork so we must copy it
at fork time.
Thus three reasonable choices:
- Copy to a new CPU page
- Migrate back to a CPU page and write protect it
- Copy to a new device exclusive page
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists