[lkml]   [2019]   [Feb]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [LSF/MM TOPIC] Discuss least bad options for resolving longterm-GUP usage by RDMA
On 2/11/19 2:12 PM, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2019 at 01:22:11PM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
>> The only way that breaks is if longterm pins imply an irreversible action, such
>> as blocking and waiting in a way that you can't back out of or get interrupted
>> out of. And the design doesn't seem to be going in that direction, right?
> RDMA, vfio, etc will always have 'long term' pins that are
> irreversible on demand. It is part of the HW capability.

Yes, I get that about the HW. But I didn't quite phrase it accurately. What I
meant was, irreversible from the kernel code's point of view; specifically,
the filesystem while in various writeback paths.

But anyway, Jan's proposal a bit earlier today [1] is finally sinking into
my head--if we actually go that way, and prevent the caller from setting up
a problematic gup pin in the first place, then that may make this point sort
of moot.

> I think the flag is badly named, it is really more of a
> ie indicate to the FS that is should not attempt to remap physical
> memory addresses backing this VMA. If the FS can't do that it must
> fail.

Yes. Duration is probably less important than the fact that the page
is specially treated.

John Hubbard

 \ /
  Last update: 2019-02-11 23:34    [W:0.109 / U:4.256 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site