Hi Matthew, On Tue, 23 Jun 2026 19:33:42 +0100 Matthew Wilcox <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 23, 2026 at 08:19:42PM +0200, Christian A. Ehrhardt wrote: > > The panthor version is only compile tested because I don't > > have the hardware. However, the code is identical to that > > fixed in [1] and I have a reproducer for that. > > > > No need for for stable backports. The code is new in 7.1. > > What documentation did you need to see to persuade you to use > map_pages instead of writing a huge_fault handler? > > (yes, you're all Doing It Wrong, please stop, but help us help you) We tried [1], but couldn't figure out how to make it work with the current locking in the gem_shmem logic, so we decided to postpone the map_page() addition. We plan to get back to it and implement map_page(), but my understanding is that we still need the fault()+huge_fault() as a fallback for when we can't acquire the locks we need to service the fault. Oh, and BTW, we had just the fault() implementation in the version that was merged, no huge_fault(), but this fault() implementation was mapping PMDs which led to another issue [2] that forced us to add this huge_fault() implem. I'm all for improving that, but if I'm completely honest, there are times where our MM-related questions are left unanswered ([3] is one example), and it gets hard to figure out how to do things properly without proper guidance from the MM experts. I thought [2] was one of these, but apparently the MM list/maintainers were not Cc-ed on that one, oops. Just to be clear, I'm not blaming anyone here (I know how busy subsystem maintainers are in general), I'm just trying to explain how we ended up with these new huge_fault() implementations (one being a fork of the original implementation) that you were not expecting, but also wanted to point out that we've been pretty transparent about where we were heading during the submission process, and we didn't get a clear "no, stop there!" back then. Anyway, I'll try to get back to this map_pages() implementation, and see how we can handle the fallback when locks can't be acquired in that path (I assume this would mean no PMD mapping in the fallback path if we get rid of huge_fault()). Regards, Boris [1]https://patchew.org/linux/[email protected]/[email protected]/ [2]https://lore.kernel.org/all/[email protected]/ [3]https://lore.kernel.org/all/20260319155028.291f3157@fedora/
