[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZjPfKqMJYU71iCV9@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 2 May 2024 19:44:58 +0100
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...dia.com>
Cc: John Hubbard <jhubbard@...dia.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Alistair Popple <apopple@...dia.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
linux-mm@...ck.org, Mike Marciniszyn <mike.marciniszyn@...el.com>,
Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
Artemy Kovalyov <artemyko@...dia.com>,
Michael Guralnik <michaelgur@...dia.com>,
Pak Markthub <pmarkthub@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] RDMA/umem: pin_user_pages*() can temporarily fail due to
migration glitches
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 03:34:08PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> IMHO pin_user_pages() should sleep and spin in an interruptable sleep
killable, not interruptible. Otherwise SIGWINCH and SIGALRM can
result an early return.
> until we get all the migrations done. Not sure how hard it would be to
> add some kind of proper waiting event sleep?
ummmmm. We have a "has waiters" bit in the folio. So on every call to
folio_put(), we could check that bit and wake up any waiters. I need to
think about that; right now, we only use it for unlock and end_writeback.
Making folio_put() heavier is, well, quite a lot of call-sites.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists