On Wed, Feb 24, 2021 at 02:55:05PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> Ok, but how does this really help us, unless you're also proposing some
> redesign of the memory_lock semaphore? Even if we're zapping all the
> affected devices for a bus reset that doesn't eliminate that we still
> require devic
On Mon, 22 Feb 2021 13:22:30 -0400
Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:51:13AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > + vfio_device_unmap_mapping_range(vdev->device,
> > + VFIO_PCI_INDEX_TO_OFFSET(VFIO_PCI_BAR0_REGION_INDEX),
> > + VFIO_PCI_INDE
On Mon, Feb 22, 2021 at 09:51:13AM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:
> + vfio_device_unmap_mapping_range(vdev->device,
> + VFIO_PCI_INDEX_TO_OFFSET(VFIO_PCI_BAR0_REGION_INDEX),
> + VFIO_PCI_INDEX_TO_OFFSET(VFIO_PCI_ROM_REGION_INDEX) -
> +
With the vfio device fd tied to the address space of the pseudo fs
inode, we can use the mm to track all vmas that might be mmap'ing
device BARs, which removes our vma_list and all the complicated
lock ordering necessary to manually zap each related vma.
Suggested-by: Jason Gunthorpe
Signed-off-b
4 matches
Mail list logo