Re: [PATCH v8 5/8] mm: Device exclusive memory access

Peter Xu
2021-05-19T12:15:48Z

On Wed, May 19, 2021 at 09:04:53PM +1000, Alistair Popple wrote:
> Failing fork() because we couldn't take a lock doesn't seem like the right
> approach though, especially as there is already existing code that retries. I
> get this adds complexity though, so would be happy to take a look at cleaning
> copy_pte_range() up in future.

Yes, I proposed that as this one won't affect any existing applications (unlike
the existing ones) but only new userspace driver apps that will use this new
atomic feature.

IMHO it'll be a pity to add extra complexity and maintainance burden into
fork() if only for keeping the "logical correctness of fork()" however the code
never triggers. If we start with trylock we'll know whether people will use it,
since people will complain with a reason when needed; however I still doubt
whether a sane userspace device driver should fork() within busy interaction
with the device underneath..

In all cases, please still consider to keep them in copy_nonpresent_pte() (and
if to rework, separating patches would be great).

Thanks,

--
Peter Xu