On 2024-12-11 14:29:29 [+0100], Linus Walleij wrote: > So fast GUP is supposed to be lockless, and should just not > have this problem. So it can't be addressing gup_fast_pgd_range() > right? … > I'm more asking if HIGHPTE even acquires a spinlock anymore > as it is supposed to be "fast"/lockless. If it does, it is clearly violating > the "fast" promise of the fast GUP API and should not exist. This is lockless on x86. The problem is ARM's arch_kmap_local_high_get(). This is where the lock is from. > Yours, > Linus Walleij Sebastian
