Re: [RESEND RFC PATCH 0/5] Remote mapping

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

 



On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 09:11:48AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 04, 2020 at 02:31:11PM +0300, Adalbert Lazăr wrote:
> > VMAs obtained by mmap()ing memory access fds mirror the contents of the remote
> > process address space within the specified range. Pages are installed in the
> > current process page tables at fault time and removed by the mmu_interval_notifier
> > invalidate callbck. No further memory management is involved.
> > On attempts to access a hole, or if a mapping was removed by PIDFD_MEM_UNMAP,
> > or if the remote process address space was reaped by OOM, the remote mapping
> > fault handler returns VM_FAULT_SIGBUS.
> 
> I still think anything along these lines needs to meet the XPMEM use
> cases as well, we have to have more general solutions for such MM
> stuff:
> 
> https://gitlab.com/hjelmn/xpmem
> 
> However, I think this fundamentally falls into some of the same bad
> direction as xpmem.
> 
> I would much rather see this design copy & clone the VMA's than try to
> mirror the PTEs inside the VMAs from the remote into a single giant
> VMA and somehow split/mirror the VMA ops.

I'm on holiday for the next few days, but does the mshare() API work for
your use case?

Proposal: http://www.wil.cx/~willy/linux/sileby.html
Start at implementation:
http://git.infradead.org/users/willy/linux.git/shortlog/refs/heads/mshare




[Index of Archives]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux