Hi Dave,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:00:19PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> Down in userfaultfd_wake_function(), it looks like you intended for a
> len=0 to mean "wake all". But the validate_range() that we do from
> userspace has a !len check in it, which keeps us from passing a len=0 in
> from
On 05/14/2015 10:31 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> +static int userfaultfd_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wq, unsigned mode,
> + int wake_flags, void *key)
> +{
> + struct userfaultfd_wake_range *range = key;
> + int ret;
> + struct userfaultfd_wait_queue
On 05/14/2015 10:31 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
+static int userfaultfd_wake_function(wait_queue_t *wq, unsigned mode,
+ int wake_flags, void *key)
+{
+ struct userfaultfd_wake_range *range = key;
+ int ret;
+ struct userfaultfd_wait_queue *uwq;
Hi Dave,
On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 12:00:19PM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
Down in userfaultfd_wake_function(), it looks like you intended for a
len=0 to mean wake all. But the validate_range() that we do from
userspace has a !len check in it, which keeps us from passing a len=0 in
from
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
>
> To fix it I added this along a comment:
Ok, this looks good as a explanation/fix for the races (and also as an
example of my worry about waitqueue_active() use in general).
However, it now makes me suspect that the optimistic "let's
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:49:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Andrea Arcangeli
> wrote:
> > +static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> > + struct userfaultfd_wake_range
> > *range)
> >
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:49:06AM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com
wrote:
+static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
+ struct userfaultfd_wake_range
On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com wrote:
To fix it I added this along a comment:
Ok, this looks good as a explanation/fix for the races (and also as an
example of my worry about waitqueue_active() use in general).
However, it now makes me suspect that the
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Andrea Arcangeli wrote:
> +static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
> + struct userfaultfd_wake_range
> *range)
> +{
> + if (waitqueue_active(>fault_wqh))
> +
Once an userfaultfd has been created and certain region of the process
virtual address space have been registered into it, the thread
responsible for doing the memory externalization can manage the page
faults in userland by talking to the kernel using the userfaultfd
protocol.
poll() can be used
On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Andrea Arcangeli aarca...@redhat.com wrote:
+static __always_inline void wake_userfault(struct userfaultfd_ctx *ctx,
+ struct userfaultfd_wake_range
*range)
+{
+ if (waitqueue_active(ctx-fault_wqh))
+
Once an userfaultfd has been created and certain region of the process
virtual address space have been registered into it, the thread
responsible for doing the memory externalization can manage the page
faults in userland by talking to the kernel using the userfaultfd
protocol.
poll() can be used
12 matches
Mail list logo
