Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/10] mm: adjust get_user_pages* functions to explicitly pass FOLL_* flags
- From: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 21:26:47 +0200
- Cc: Lorenzo Stoakes <lstoakes@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-mm@xxxxxxxxx, Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>, Hugh Dickins <hughd@xxxxxxxxxx>, Rik van Riel <riel@xxxxxxxxxx>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, adi-buildroot-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ceph-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-arm-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-cris-kernel@xxxxxxxx, linux-fbdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-ia64@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-media@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-mips@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-rdma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-s390@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-samsung-soc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-scsi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-security-module@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-sh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linuxppc-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, sparclinux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, x86@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <5807AC2B.4090208@linux.intel.com>
- References: <20161013002020.3062-1-lstoakes@gmail.com> <20161018153050.GC13117@dhcp22.suse.cz> <20161019085815.GA22239@lucifer> <20161019090727.GE7517@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5807A427.7010200@linux.intel.com> <20161019170127.GN24393@dhcp22.suse.cz> <5807AC2B.4090208@linux.intel.com>
- User-agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
On Wed 19-10-16 10:23:55, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 10/19/2016 10:01 AM, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > The question I had earlier was whether this has to be an explicit FOLL
> > flag used by g-u-p users or we can just use it internally when mm !=
> > current->mm
>
> The reason I chose not to do that was that deferred work gets run under
> a basically random 'current'. If we just use 'mm != current->mm', then
> the deferred work will sometimes have pkeys enforced and sometimes not,
> basically randomly.
OK, I see (async_pf_execute and ksm ). It makes more sense to me. Thanks
for the clarification.
--
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[Index of Archives]
[Linux Kernel]
[Sparc Linux]
[DCCP]
[Linux ARM]
[Yosemite News]
[Linux SCSI]
[Linux x86_64]
[Linux for Ham Radio]