On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 12:08:42PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 30.01.25 11:10, Simona Vetter wrote:
> > On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 12:54:06PM +0100, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > > Ever since commit b756a3b5e7ea ("mm: device exclusive memory access")
> > > we can return with a device-exclusive entry from page_vma_mapped_walk().
> > >
> > > try_to_unmap_one() is not prepared for that, so teach it about these
> > > non-present nonswap PTEs.
> > >
> > > Before that, could we also have triggered this case with device-private
> > > entries? Unlikely.
> >
> > Just quick comment on this, I'm still pondering all the other aspects.
> >
> > device-private memory is entirely owned by the driver, the core mm isn't
> > supposed to touch these beyond migrating it back to system memory in
> > do_swap_page. Plus using rmap when the driver asks for invalidating
> > mappings as needed.
> >
> > So no lru, thp, migration or anything initiated by core mm should ever
> > happen on these device private pages. If it does, it'd be a bug.
>
> I was not 100% sure about HWPoison handling, that's why I added that
> comment. In other regards I agree: reclaim etc. does not apply.
So maybe I'm just entirely lost, but unless you have a coherent
interconnect I don't think hwpoisin should get involved with device
private memory? And for a coherent interconnect it's just device memory,
which isn't treated very special.
Also to clarify, I meant this as a general comment for all subsequent
patches that have the same paragraph.
-Sima
--
Simona Vetter
Software Engineer, Intel Corporation
http://blog.ffwll.ch
