[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220913000632.2o4alsekgskof2x2@box.shutemov.name>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2022 03:06:32 +0300
From: "Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Ashok Raj <ashok_raj@...ux.intel.com>,
"Kirill A. Shutemov" <kirill@...temov.name>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>, x86@...nel.org,
Kostya Serebryany <kcc@...gle.com>,
Andrey Ryabinin <ryabinin.a.a@...il.com>,
Andrey Konovalov <andreyknvl@...il.com>,
Alexander Potapenko <glider@...gle.com>,
Taras Madan <tarasmadan@...gle.com>,
Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"H . J . Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>,
Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Rick Edgecombe <rick.p.edgecombe@...el.com>,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Ashok Raj <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv8 00/11] Linear Address Masking enabling
On Mon, Sep 12, 2022 at 03:55:02PM -0700, Jacob Pan wrote:
> Hi Dave,
>
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2022 14:41:56 -0700, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 9/12/22 13:39, Jacob Pan wrote:
> > >>> + if (pasid_valid(mm->pasid) && !forced) {
> > > I don't think this works since we have lazy pasid free. for example,
> > > after all the devices did sva_unbind, mm->pasid we'll remain valid
> > > until mmdrop(). LAM should be supported in this case.
> >
> > Nah, it works fine.
> > It just means that the rules are "you can't do LAM if your process
> > *EVER* got a PASID" instead of "you can't do LAM if you are actively
> > using your PASID".
> Sure it works if you change the rules, but this case need to documented.
>
> >
> > We knew that PASID use would be a one-way trip for a process when we
> > moved to the simplified implementation. This is just more fallout from
> > that. It's fine.
> >
> Is LAM also a one-way trip?
Yes.
--
Kiryl Shutsemau / Kirill A. Shutemov
Powered by blists - more mailing lists