On 30.01.25 06:34, Alistair Popple wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:58:00PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
We no longer get a MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE on conversion with the owner set
that one has to filter out: if there already *is* a device-exclusive
entry (e.g., other device, we don't have that information), GUP will
convert it back to an ordinary PTE and notify via
remove_device_exclusive_entry().
What tree is this against? I tried applying to v6.13 and Linus current master
but neither applied cleanly.
See the cover letter. This is on top of the fixes series, which is based
on mm-unstable from yesterday.
Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c | 6 +-----
include/linux/mmu_notifier.h | 4 +---
include/linux/rmap.h | 2 +-
lib/test_hmm.c | 2 +-
mm/rmap.c | 3 +--
5 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c
index 39e3740980bb..4758fee182b4 100644
--- a/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c
+++ b/drivers/gpu/drm/nouveau/nouveau_svm.c
@@ -510,10 +510,6 @@ static bool nouveau_svm_range_invalidate(struct mmu_interval_notifier *mni,
struct svm_notifier *sn =
container_of(mni, struct svm_notifier, notifier);
- if (range->event == MMU_NOTIFY_EXCLUSIVE &&
- range->owner == sn->svmm->vmm->cli->drm->dev)
- return true;
I think this will cause a live-lock because make_device_exclusive_range()
will call the notifier which without the filtering will increment the sequence
count and cause endless retries of the loop in nouveau_atomic_range_fault().
The notifier needs to be able to figure out if it was called in response to
something this thread did (ie. make_device_exclusive_range) and can therefore
ignore the invalidation, or from some other thread.
Yes, as discussed in the other patch, this must stay to inform secondary
MMUs about the conversion *to* device exclusive.
Looking at hmm_test I see that doesn't use the sequence counter to ensure
the PTE remains valid whilst it is mapped. I think that is probably wrong, so
apologies if that lead you astray.
Yes, the hmm_test does not completely follow the same model the nouveau
implementation does; so it might not be completely correct.
--
Cheers,
David / dhildenb
