; Horn ; Max Gurtovoy ;
> k...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Linuxarm
>
> 主题: Re: [PATCH] vfio/pci: make the vfio_pci_mmap_fault reentrant
>
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:41:27 -0400
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:26:07PM -0700, Alex
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:45:03 -0400
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > And I think this is what we end up with for the current code base:
>
> Yeah, that looks Ok
>
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 19:41:27 -0400
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:26:07PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > In the new series, I think the fault handler becomes (untested):
> >
> > static vm_fault_t vfio_pci_mmap_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> > {
> > struct
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:56:39PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> And I think this is what we end up with for the current code base:
Yeah, that looks Ok
> diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> index 65e7e6b44578..2f247ab18c66 100644
> +++
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:26:07PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> In the new series, I think the fault handler becomes (untested):
>
> static vm_fault_t vfio_pci_mmap_fault(struct vm_fault *vmf)
> {
> struct vm_area_struct *vma = vmf->vma;
> struct vfio_pci_device *vdev =
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 16:00:36 -0500
Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 01:11:04PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > It's just that the initial MMIO access delay would be spread to the 1st
> > > access
> > > of each mmio page access rather than using the previous pre-fault scheme.
> > >
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 01:11:04PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > It's just that the initial MMIO access delay would be spread to the 1st
> > access
> > of each mmio page access rather than using the previous pre-fault scheme. I
> > think an userspace cares the delay enough should pre-fault
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 14:48:24 -0500
Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:26:07PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:47:39 -0500
> > Peter Xu wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:40:04PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 12:26:07 -0700
Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:47:39 -0500
> Peter Xu wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:40:04PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:29:51AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:46:09
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:26:07PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:47:39 -0500
> Peter Xu wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:40:04PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:29:51AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 13:47:39 -0500
Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:40:04PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:29:51AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:46:09 -0400
> > > Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 12:40:04PM -0400, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:29:51AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:46:09 -0400
> > Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:49:09AM +, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> > > > Hi guys:
> > > >
>
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 08:29:51AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:46:09 -0400
> Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:49:09AM +, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> > > Hi guys:
> > >
> > > Thanks for the helpful comments, after rethinking the issue, I have
> > >
On Tue, 9 Mar 2021 08:46:09 -0400
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:49:09AM +, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> > Hi guys:
> >
> > Thanks for the helpful comments, after rethinking the issue, I have proposed
> > the following change:
> > 1. follow_pte instead of follow_pfn.
>
>
On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 03:49:09AM +, Zengtao (B) wrote:
> Hi guys:
>
> Thanks for the helpful comments, after rethinking the issue, I have proposed
> the following change:
> 1. follow_pte instead of follow_pfn.
Still no on follow_pfn, you don't need it once you use vmf_insert_pfn
> 2.
Huck ; Kevin Tian ; Andrew
> Morton ; Giovanni Cabiddu
> ; Michel Lespinasse ; Jann
> Horn ; Max Gurtovoy ;
> k...@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Jason Gunthorpe
>
> 主题: Re: [PATCH] vfio/pci: make the vfio_pci_mmap_fault reentrant
>
> On Mon, Mar 08, 2021
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 01:21:06PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> > diff --git a/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> > index 65e7e6b..6928c37 100644
> > +++ b/drivers/vfio/pci/vfio_pci.c
> > @@ -1613,6 +1613,7 @@ static vm_fault_t vfio_pci_mmap_fault(struct vm_fault
> >
On Mon, Mar 08, 2021 at 01:21:06PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:11:26 +0800
> Zeng Tao wrote:
>
> > We have met the following error when test with DPDK testpmd:
> > [ 1591.733256] kernel BUG at mm/memory.c:2177!
> > [ 1591.739515] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1]
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 19:11:26 +0800
Zeng Tao wrote:
> We have met the following error when test with DPDK testpmd:
> [ 1591.733256] kernel BUG at mm/memory.c:2177!
> [ 1591.739515] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
> [ 1591.747381] Modules linked in: vfio_iommu_type1 vfio_pci
We have met the following error when test with DPDK testpmd:
[ 1591.733256] kernel BUG at mm/memory.c:2177!
[ 1591.739515] Internal error: Oops - BUG: 0 [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[ 1591.747381] Modules linked in: vfio_iommu_type1 vfio_pci vfio_virqfd vfio
pv680_mii(O)
[ 1591.760536] CPU: 2 PID: 227 Comm:
20 matches
Mail list logo
