On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 03:25:50PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 09:23:08AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 01:38:59PM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 03:00:22PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 10:41:42AM -0700, Ira Weiny wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > And I was pretty sure uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() would take care of 
> > > > > (or ensure
> > > > > that some other thread is) destroying all the MR's we have associated 
> > > > > with this
> > > > > FD.
> > > > 
> > > > fd's can't be revoked, so destroy_ufile_hw() can't touch them. It
> > > > deletes any underlying HW resources, but the FD persists.
> > > 
> > > I misspoke.  I should have said associated with this "context".  And of 
> > > course
> > > uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() does not touch the FD.  What I mean is that the
> > > struct file which had file_pins hanging off of it would be getting its 
> > > file
> > > pins destroyed by uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw().  Therefore we don't need the 
> > > FD
> > > after uverbs_destroy_ufile_hw() is done.
> > > 
> > > But since it does not block it may be that the struct file is gone before 
> > > the
> > > MR is actually destroyed.  Which means I think the GUP code would blow up 
> > > in
> > > that case...  :-(
> > 
> > Oh, yes, that is true, you also can't rely on the struct file living
> > longer than the HW objects either, that isn't how the lifetime model
> > works.
> 
> Reviewing all these old threads...  And this made me think.  While the HW
> objects may out live the struct file.
> 
> They _are_ going away in a finite amount of time right?  It is not like they
> could be held forever right?

Yes, at least until they become shared between FDs

Jason

Reply via email to