On Fri, Feb 4, 2022 at 4:03 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/3/22 21:56, Yu Zhao wrote:
> ...
> >>> Got it. IIRC, get_user_pages() doesn't imply a write barrier. If so,
> >>> there should be a smp_wmb() on the other side:
> >>
> >> If I understand it correctly, it actually implies a full memory
> >> barrier, doesn't it?
> >>
> >> Because... gup_pte_range() (fast path) calls try_grab_compound_head(),
> >> which eventually calls* atomic_add_unless(), an atomic conditional RMW
> >> operation with return value, thus fully ordered on success (atomic_t.rst);
> >> (on failure gup_pte_range() falls back to the slow path, below.)
> >>
> >> And follow_page_pte() (slow path) calls try_grab_page(), which also calls
> >> into try_grab_compound_head(), as the above.
>
> Well, doing so was a mistake, actually. I've recently reverted it, via:
> commit c36c04c2e132 ("Revert "mm/gup: small refactoring: simplify
> try_grab_page()""). Details are in the commit log.
>
> Apologies for the confusion that this may have created.
No worries; thanks for the pointers / commit log.
>
> thanks,
> --
> John Hubbard
> NVIDIA
> [...]
--
Mauricio Faria de Oliveira
