lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [Feb]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH V8 38/44] memremap_pages: Define pgmap_mk_{readwrite|noaccess}() calls
On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 4:10 PM Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 04, 2022 at 10:35:59AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 9:55 AM <ira.weiny@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
>
> [snip]
>
> I'll address the other comments later but wanted to address the idea below.
>
> > > diff --git a/include/linux/sched.h b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > index f5b2be39a78c..5020ed7e67b7 100644
> > > --- a/include/linux/sched.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/sched.h
> > > @@ -1492,6 +1492,13 @@ struct task_struct {
> > > struct callback_head l1d_flush_kill;
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > +#ifdef CONFIG_DEVMAP_ACCESS_PROTECTION
> > > + /*
> > > + * NOTE: pgmap_prot_count is modified within a single thread of
> > > + * execution. So it does not need to be atomic_t.
> > > + */
> > > + u32 pgmap_prot_count;
> > > +#endif
> >
> > It's not at all clear why the task struct needs to be burdened with
> > this accounting. Given that a devmap instance is needed to manage page
> > protections, why not move the nested protection tracking to a percpu
> > variable relative to an @pgmap arg? Something like:
> >
> > void __pgmap_mk_readwrite(struct dev_pagemap *pgmap)
> > {
> > migrate_disable();
> > preempt_disable();
>
> Why burden threads like this? kmap_local_page() is perfectly able to migrate
> or be preempted?
>
> I think this is way to restrictive.

kmap_local_page() holds migrate_disable() over the entire mapping, so
we're only talking about preempt_disable(). I tend to think that
bloating task_struct for something that is rarely used "kmap on dax
pmem pages" is not the right tradeoff.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-02-05 01:21    [W:0.120 / U:3.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site