[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMQcBWvjVUEBU6mF@x1n>
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2023 15:50:29 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
liubo <liubo254@...wei.com>,
Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>,
John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
Mel Gorman <mgorman@...hsingularity.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] smaps / mm/gup: fix gup_can_follow_protnone
fallout
On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 09:40:54PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Hmm. So three alternatives I see:
>
> 1) Use FOLL_FORCE in follow_page() to unconditionally disable protnone
> checks. Alternatively, have an internal FOLL_NO_PROTNONE flag if we
> don't like that.
>
> 2) Revert the commit and reintroduce unconditional FOLL_NUMA without
> FOLL_FORCE.
>
> 3) Have a FOLL_NUMA that callers like KVM can pass.
I'm afraid 3) means changing numa balancing to opt-in, probably no-go for
any non-kvm gup users as that could start to break there, even if making
smaps/follow_page happy again.
I keep worrying 1) on FOLL_FORCE abuse.
So I keep my vote on 2).
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists