On 2018-11-30 3:28 p.m., Dan Williams wrote: > On Fri, Nov 30, 2018 at 2:19 PM Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> Hey, >> >> On 2018-11-29 11:51 a.m., Dan Williams wrote: >>> Got it, let me see how bad moving arch_remove_memory() turns out, >>> sounds like a decent approach to coordinate multiple users of a single >>> ref. >> >> I've put together a patch set[1] that fixes all the users of >> devm_memremap_pages() without moving arch_remove_memory(). It's pretty >> clean except for the p2pdma case which is fairly tricky but I don't >> think there's an easy way around that. > > The solution I'm trying is to introduce a devm_memremap_pages_remove() > that each user can call after they have called percpu_ref_exit(), it's > just crashing for me currently... Ok, that's probably less of a clean up for other users, but sounds like it would be less tricky for p2pdma. I'd have to create a list of all pgmaps, but that's not so hard and doesn't create any nasty races to consider like my current solution. >> If you come up with a better solution that's great, otherwise let me >> know and I'll do some clean up and more testing and send this set to the >> lists. Though, we might need to wait for your patch to land before we >> can properly send the fix to it (the first patch in my series)... > > I'd say go ahead and send it. We can fix p2pdma as a follow-on. Send > it to Andrew as a patch relative to the current -next tree. Ok, though, how do I reference the current patch in Andrew's tree? Or does it matter? Logan
