[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZMgCr4TxgNQZhhQK@x1n>
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2023 14:51:27 -0400
From: Peter Xu <peterx@...hat.com>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>, 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@...e.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/4] smaps / mm/gup: fix gup_can_follow_protnone
fallout
On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 11:23:59AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> So GUP-fast can only look at the page table data, and as such *has* to
> fail if the page table is inaccessible.
>
> But GUP in general? Why would it want to honor numa faulting?
> Particularly by default, and _particularly_ for things like
> FOLL_REMOTE.
True.
>
> In fact, I feel like this is what the real rule should be: we simply
> define that get_user_pages_fast() is about looking up the page in the
> page tables.
>
> So if you want something that acts like a page table lookup, you use
> that "fast" thing. It's literally how it is designed. The whole - and
> pretty much only - point of it is that it can be used with no locking
> at all, because it basically acts like the hardware lookup does.
Unfortunately I think at least kvm (besides the rest..) relies not only on
numa balancing but also fast-gup.. :-( Please refer to hva_to_pfn() where
it even supports fast-gup-only HVA translation when atomic==true set.
Thanks,
--
Peter Xu
Powered by blists - more mailing lists