On Tue, 28 May 2019 20:39:36 +0800 Minchan Kim wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 08:15:23PM +0800, Hillf Danton wrote:
> < snip >
> > > > > + orig_pte = pte_offset_map_lock(vma->vm_mm, pmd, addr, &ptl);
> > > > > + for (pte = orig_pte; addr < end; pte++, addr += PAGE_SIZE) {
> > > >
> > > > s/end/next/ ?
> > >
> > > Why do you think it should be next?
> > >
> > Simply based on the following line, and afraid that next != end
> > > > > + next = pmd_addr_end(addr, end);
>
> pmd_addr_end will return smaller address so end is more proper.
>
Fair.
> > > > > +static long madvise_cool(struct vm_area_struct *vma,
> > > > > + unsigned long start_addr, unsigned long end_addr)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct mm_struct *mm = vma->vm_mm;
> > > > > + struct mmu_gather tlb;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (vma->vm_flags & (VM_LOCKED|VM_HUGETLB|VM_PFNMAP))
> > > > > + return -EINVAL;
> > > >
> > > > No service in case of VM_IO?
> > >
> > > I don't know VM_IO would have regular LRU pages but just follow normal
> > > convention for DONTNEED and FREE.
> > > Do you have anything in your mind?
> > >
> > I want to skip a mapping set up for DMA.
>
> What you meant is those pages in VM_IO vma are not in LRU list?
What I concern is the case that there are IO pages on lru list.
> Or
> pages in the vma are always pinned so no worth to deactivate or reclaim?
>
I will not be nervous or paranoid if they are pinned.
In short, I prefer to skip IO mapping since any kind of address range
can be expected from userspace, and it may probably cover an IO mapping.
And things can get out of control, if we reclaim some IO pages while
underlying device is trying to fill data into any of them, for instance.
BR
Hillf
