[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v9 04/12] vfio iommu: Add support for mediated d

From: Alexey Kardashevskiy
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v9 04/12] vfio iommu: Add support for mediated devices
Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2016 15:29:54 +1100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0

On 03/11/16 00:18, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
> On 11/2/2016 6:30 PM, Jike Song wrote:
>> On 11/02/2016 08:41 PM, Kirti Wankhede wrote:
>>> On 11/2/2016 5:51 PM, Jike Song wrote:
>>>> On 11/02/2016 12:09 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>>>>> Or you could just reference and use @mm as KVM and others do. Or there is
>>>>> anything else you need from @current than just @mm?
>>>> I agree. If @mm is the only thing needed, there is really no reason to
>>>> refer to the @task :-)
>>> In vfio_lock_acct(), that is for page accounting, if mm->mmap_sem is
>>> already held then page accounting is deferred, where task structure is
>>> used to get mm and work is deferred only if mm exist:
>>>     mm = get_task_mm(task);

get_task_mm() increments mm_users which is basically a number of userspaces
holding the reference to mm. As this case it is not a userspace, mm_count
needs to be incremented imho.

>>> That is where this module need task structure.
>> Kirti,
>> By calling get_task_mm you hold a ref on @mm and save it in iommu,
>> whenever you want to do something like vfio_lock_acct(), use that mm
>> (as you said, if mmap_sem not accessible then defer it to a work, but
>> still @mm is the whole information), and put it after the usage.
>> I still can't see any reason that the @task have to be saved. It's
>> always the @mm all the time. Did I miss anything?
> If the process is terminated by SIGKILL, as Alexey mentioned in this
> mail thread earlier exit_mm() is called first and then all files are
> closed. From exit_mm(), task->mm is set to NULL. So from teardown path,
> we should call get_task_mm(task)

... which will return NULL, no?

> to get current status intsead of using
> stale pointer.

If you increment either mm_users or mm_count at the exact place where you
want to cache task pointer, why would mm pointer become stale until you do
mmdrop() or mmput()?


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]