Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1571223 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-01 01:50 +0100 |
| Last post | 2017-02-02 15:00 +0100 |
| Articles | 4 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: add event for exit() notification Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-02-01 01:50 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: add event for exit() notification Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-02-01 07:40 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: add event for exit() notification Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> - 2017-02-01 23:30 +0100
Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: add event for exit() notification Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> - 2017-02-02 15:00 +0100
| From | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 01:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] userfaultfd: non-cooperative: add event for exit() notification |
| Message-ID | <t5Rhw-7s5-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:44:31 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> Allow userfaultfd monitor track termination of the processes that have
> memory backed by the uffd.
>
> --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> @@ -774,6 +774,30 @@ void userfaultfd_unmap_complete(struct mm_struct *mm, struct list_head *uf)
> }
> }
>
> +void userfaultfd_exit(struct mm_struct *mm)
> +{
> + struct vm_area_struct *vma = mm->mmap;
> +
> + while (vma) {
> + struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx = vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx;
> +
> + if (ctx && (ctx->features & UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT)) {
> + struct userfaultfd_wait_queue ewq;
> +
> + userfaultfd_ctx_get(ctx);
> +
> + msg_init(&ewq.msg);
> + ewq.msg.event = UFFD_EVENT_EXIT;
> +
> + userfaultfd_event_wait_completion(ctx, &ewq);
> +
> + ctx->features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT;
> + }
> +
> + vma = vma->vm_next;
> + }
> +}
And we can do the vma walk without locking because the caller (exit_mm)
knows it now has exclusive access. Worth a comment?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 07:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t5WKd-2n7-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1571223 |
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 04:41:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:44:31 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Allow userfaultfd monitor track termination of the processes that have
> > memory backed by the uffd.
> >
> > --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > @@ -774,6 +774,30 @@ void userfaultfd_unmap_complete(struct mm_struct *mm, struct list_head *uf)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +void userfaultfd_exit(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma = mm->mmap;
> > +
> > + while (vma) {
> > + struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx = vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx;
> > +
> > + if (ctx && (ctx->features & UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT)) {
> > + struct userfaultfd_wait_queue ewq;
> > +
> > + userfaultfd_ctx_get(ctx);
> > +
> > + msg_init(&ewq.msg);
> > + ewq.msg.event = UFFD_EVENT_EXIT;
> > +
> > + userfaultfd_event_wait_completion(ctx, &ewq);
> > +
> > + ctx->features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT;
> > + }
> > +
> > + vma = vma->vm_next;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> And we can do the vma walk without locking because the caller (exit_mm)
> knows it now has exclusive access. Worth a comment?
Sure, will add. Do you prefer an incremental patch or update this one?
--
Sincerely yours,
Mike.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-01 23:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t6bzA-3Hx-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1571279 |
On Wed, 1 Feb 2017 08:35:07 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 04:41:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:44:31 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Allow userfaultfd monitor track termination of the processes that have
> > > memory backed by the uffd.
> > >
> > > --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > > +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > > @@ -774,6 +774,30 @@ void userfaultfd_unmap_complete(struct mm_struct *mm, struct list_head *uf)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +void userfaultfd_exit(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > > +{
> > > + struct vm_area_struct *vma = mm->mmap;
> > > +
> > > + while (vma) {
> > > + struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx = vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx;
> > > +
> > > + if (ctx && (ctx->features & UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT)) {
> > > + struct userfaultfd_wait_queue ewq;
> > > +
> > > + userfaultfd_ctx_get(ctx);
> > > +
> > > + msg_init(&ewq.msg);
> > > + ewq.msg.event = UFFD_EVENT_EXIT;
> > > +
> > > + userfaultfd_event_wait_completion(ctx, &ewq);
> > > +
> > > + ctx->features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + vma = vma->vm_next;
> > > + }
> > > +}
> >
> > And we can do the vma walk without locking because the caller (exit_mm)
> > knows it now has exclusive access. Worth a comment?
>
> Sure, will add. Do you prefer an incremental patch or update this one?
Either is OK. I routinely turn replacement patches into deltas so I
and others can see what changed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-02 15:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <t6q5z-4M6-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1571223 |
Hello Andrew,
On Tue, Jan 31, 2017 at 04:41:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Jan 2017 20:44:31 +0200 Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> > Allow userfaultfd monitor track termination of the processes that have
> > memory backed by the uffd.
> >
> > --- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > +++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
> > @@ -774,6 +774,30 @@ void userfaultfd_unmap_complete(struct mm_struct *mm, struct list_head *uf)
> > }
> > }
> >
> > +void userfaultfd_exit(struct mm_struct *mm)
> > +{
> > + struct vm_area_struct *vma = mm->mmap;
> > +
> > + while (vma) {
> > + struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx = vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx;
> > +
> > + if (ctx && (ctx->features & UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT)) {
> > + struct userfaultfd_wait_queue ewq;
> > +
> > + userfaultfd_ctx_get(ctx);
> > +
> > + msg_init(&ewq.msg);
> > + ewq.msg.event = UFFD_EVENT_EXIT;
> > +
> > + userfaultfd_event_wait_completion(ctx, &ewq);
> > +
> > + ctx->features &= ~UFFD_FEATURE_EVENT_EXIT;
> > + }
> > +
> > + vma = vma->vm_next;
> > + }
> > +}
>
> And we can do the vma walk without locking because the caller (exit_mm)
> knows it now has exclusive access. Worth a comment?
I've just used your wording, seems to me neat and to the point.
From 74af75b062dcb2dc3cc8d2b57f9388c22c2b89e5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2017 15:50:14 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] userfaultfd: exit event: add comment about lockless vma walk
Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport <rppt@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
---
fs/userfaultfd.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/userfaultfd.c b/fs/userfaultfd.c
index 6587f40..3c421d0 100644
--- a/fs/userfaultfd.c
+++ b/fs/userfaultfd.c
@@ -778,6 +778,10 @@ void userfaultfd_exit(struct mm_struct *mm)
{
struct vm_area_struct *vma = mm->mmap;
+ /*
+ * We can do the vma walk without locking because the caller
+ * (exit_mm) knows it now has exclusive access
+ */
while (vma) {
struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx = vma->vm_userfaultfd_ctx.ctx;
--
1.9.1
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web