[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20210519132842.GJ1002214@nvidia.com>
Date: Wed, 19 May 2021 10:28:42 -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 07:45:05PM -0400, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2021 at 08:03:27PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > Logically during fork all these device exclusive pages should be
> > reverted back to their CPU pages, write protected and the CPU page PTE
> > copied to the fork.
> >
> > We should not copy the device exclusive page PTE to the fork. I think
> > I pointed to this on an earlier rev..
>
> Agreed. Though please see the question I posted in the other thread: now I am
> not very sure whether we'll be able to mark a page as device exclusive if that
> page has mapcount>1.
IMHO it is similar to write protect done by filesystems on shared
mappings - all VMAs with a copy of the CPU page have to get switched
to the device exclusive PTE. This is why the rmap stuff is involved in
the migration helpers
Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists