On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 05:51:14PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021, Peter Xu wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 11:14:30PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > > +static int mcopy_atomic_install_ptes(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, pmd_t
> > > > *dst_pmd,
> > > > +
On Mon, 12 Apr 2021, Peter Xu wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 11:14:30PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > > +static int mcopy_atomic_install_ptes(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, pmd_t
> > > *dst_pmd,
> > > + struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> > > +
Hi, Hugh,
On Tue, Apr 06, 2021 at 11:14:30PM -0700, Hugh Dickins wrote:
> > +static int mcopy_atomic_install_ptes(struct mm_struct *dst_mm, pmd_t
> > *dst_pmd,
> > +struct vm_area_struct *dst_vma,
> > +unsigned long dst_addr, struct
On Wed, 7 Apr 2021, Axel Rasmussen wrote:
> Agreed about taking one direction or the other further.
>
> I get the sense that Peter prefers the mcopy_atomic_install_ptes()
> version, and would thus prefer to just expose that and let
> shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte() use it.
>
> But, I get the sense that
Thanks for the thorough and insightful review, Hugh!
On Tue, Apr 6, 2021 at 11:14 PM Hugh Dickins wrote:
>
> [PATCH v4] userfaultfd/shmem: fix MCOPY_ATOMIC_CONTINUE behavior
> was a significant rework, so here I'm reviewing a synthetic patch
> merged from 5.12-rc5's 20
[PATCH v4] userfaultfd/shmem: fix MCOPY_ATOMIC_CONTINUE behavior
was a significant rework, so here I'm reviewing a synthetic patch
merged from 5.12-rc5's 2021-03-31 mmotm patches:
userfaultfd-support-minor-fault-handling-for-shmem.patch
userfaultfd-support-minor-fault-handling
Previously, the continue implementation in shmem_mcopy_atomic_pte was
incorrect for two main reasons:
- It didn't correctly skip some sections of code which make sense for
newly allocated pages, but absolutely don't make sense for
pre-existing page cache pages.
- Because shmem_mcopy_continue_
7 matches
Mail list logo
