On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 01:59:22PM -0700, John Hubbard wrote: > I think I understood what you were saying. The problem is that was ignoring > a couple of points, especially in an RDMA situation: 1) the page can be > pinned by various drivers, on behalf of other processes, even if the original > process is being torn down, and 2) it doesn't really matter which process pins > a page--the end result is that it's pinned. Well, no. It is critical that nobody gets new pins after this point on behalf of *this* process as we about change what is mapped on this virtual address range. We must avoid the situation that khugepaged screws legitimate GUP users and make what process see differs from what GUP see. Pins on behalf of other processes after the point are not relevant to us. I will keep the comment as is for now. As you can see I'm struggling communicating my point. Any better wording is welcome. -- Kirill A. Shutemov
