Re: [PATCH] udmabuf: revert 'Add support for mapping hugepages (v4)'

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




Skimming over at shmem_read_mapping_page() users, I assume most of
them
use a VM_PFNMAP mapping (or don't mmap them at all), where we won't be
messing with the struct page at all.

(That might even allow you to mmap hugetlb sub-pages, because the struct
page -- and mapcount -- will be ignored completely and not touched.)
Oh, are you suggesting that if we do vma->vm_flags |= VM_PFNMAP
in the mmap handler (mmap_udmabuf) and also do
vmf_insert_pfn(vma, vmf->address, page_to_pfn(page))
instead of
vmf->page = ubuf->pages[pgoff];
get_page(vmf->page);

in the vma fault handler (udmabuf_vm_fault), we can avoid most of the
pitfalls you have identified -- including with the usage of hugetlb subpages?

Yes, that's my thinking, but I have to do my homework first to see if that would really work for hugetlb.

The thing is, I kind-of consider what udmabuf does a layer violation: we have a filesystem (shmem/hugetlb) that should handle mappings to user space. Yet, a driver decides to bypass that and simply map the pages ordinarily to user space. (revealed by the fact that hugetlb does never map sub-pages but udmabuf decides to do so)

In an ideal world everybody would simply mmap() the original memfd, but thinking about offset+size configuration within the memfd that might not always be desirable. As a workaround, we could mmap() only the PFNs, leaving the struct page unaffected.

I'll have to look closer into that.

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux