Displaying 5 results from an estimated 5 matches for "mm_update_next_owner".
2018 Dec 13
0
[PATCH] Export mm_update_next_owner function for vhost-net
...ertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> index 6b98d8e..7c09087 100644
> --- a/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> +++ b/drivers/vhost/vhost.c
> @@ -368,6 +368,7 @@ static int vhost_worker(void *data)
> }
> }
> unuse_mm(dev->mm);
> + mm_update_next_owner(dev->mm);
If you analysis is correct, this is still racy isn't it? (E.g page fault
happen between unuse_mm() and mm_update_next_owner()).
Thanks
> set_fs(oldfs);
> return 0;
> }
> diff --git a/kernel/exit.c b/kernel/exit.c
> index 0e21e6d..9e046dd 100644
> ---...
2018 Dec 18
0
[PATCH] Export mm_update_next_owner function for vhost-net
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 09:39:16AM +0800, gchen chen wrote:
> Yes,?I think so.?
> and i think the point is that unuse_mm() can't directly set tsk->mm=NULL.
So why can't unuse_mm call mm_update_next_owner?
--
MST
2018 Dec 17
0
[PATCH] Export mm_update_next_owner function for vhost-net
This seems like an issue all the unuse_mm users (at least those
outside of swapfile.c) have, so it should be solved in the core.
Bonus points for moving the set_fs magic into use_mm()..
2020 Mar 19
2
[PATCH 3/4] mm: simplify device private page handling in hmm_range_fault
...tup+0x200/0x200
[ 138.102995] ? __mutex_unlock_slowpath+0xb4/0x3f0
[ 138.107704] ? wait_for_completion+0x250/0x250
[ 138.112158] ? lock_downgrade+0x380/0x380
[ 138.116176] ? check_flags.part.0+0x82/0x210
[ 138.120463] mmput+0xb5/0x210
[ 138.123444] do_exit+0x602/0x14c0
[ 138.126776] ? mm_update_next_owner+0x400/0x400
[ 138.131329] do_group_exit+0x8a/0x140
[ 138.135006] get_signal+0x25b/0x1080
[ 138.138606] do_signal+0x8c/0xa90
[ 138.141928] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x30
[ 138.146292] ? mark_held_locks+0x24/0x90
[ 138.150219] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x24/0x30
[ 138.154580] ? lockdep_h...
2020 Mar 17
4
[PATCH 3/4] mm: simplify device private page handling in hmm_range_fault
On 3/17/20 5:59 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:47:55AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>> I've been using v7 of Ralph's tester and it is working well - it has
>> DEVICE_PRIVATE support so I think it can test this flow too. Ralph are
>> you able?
>>
>> This hunk seems trivial enough to me, can we include it now?
>
> I can send