From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Oded Gabbay Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] iommu/amd: use handle_mm_fault directly v2 Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2015 15:16:44 +0200 Message-ID: <54C4ECBC.5070301@amd.com> References: <1415830228-7844-1-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> <1415830228-7844-2-git-send-email-jbarnes@virtuousgeek.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1415830228-7844-2-git-send-email-jbarnes-Y1mF5jBUw70BENJcbMCuUQ@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org Errors-To: iommu-bounces-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org To: Jesse Barnes Cc: "jroedel-l3A5Bk7waGM@public.gmane.org" , "Bridgman, John" , "Elifaz, Dana" , "linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org" , iommu-cunTk1MwBs9QetFLy7KEm3xJsTq8ys+cHZ5vskTnxNA@public.gmane.org, "akpm-de/tnXTf+JLsfHDXvbKv3WD2FQJk+8+b@public.gmane.org" List-Id: iommu@lists.linux-foundation.org On 11/13/2014 12:10 AM, Jesse Barnes wrote: > This could be useful for debug in the future if we want to track > major/minor faults more closely, and also avoids the put_page trick we > used with gup. > > In order to do this, we also track the task struct in the PASID state > structure. This lets us update the appropriate task stats after the > fault has been handled, and may aid with debug in the future as well. > > v2: drop task accounting; GPU activity may have been submitted by a > different thread than the one binding the PASID (Joerg) > > Tested-by: Oded Gabbay > Signed-off-by: Jesse Barnes Hi Jesse, I know I tested your patch a few months ago, but we have a new feature (still internally) in the driver, which has some conflicts with this patch. Our feature is basically doing "exception handling" by registering a callback function with the iommu driver in inv_ppr_cb. Now, with the old code (we used 3.17.2 until a few days ago), this callback function was called in, at least, three use-cases (which we are testing): (1) Writing to a "bad" system memory address, which is *not* in the process's memory address space. (2) Writing to a read-only page, which is inside the process's memory address space (3) Reading from a page without permissions, which is inside the process's memory address space With the new code (3.19-rc5), this callback is only called in the first use-case, while (2) and (3) are handled in handle_mm_fault(), which is now called from do_fault. The return value of handle_mm_fault() is 0, so handle_fault_error() is not called and amdkfd doesn't get notification, hence our test fails. This is a problem for us as we want to propagate these exceptions to the user space HSA runtime, so it could handle them. I have 2 questions: 1. Why don't we call inv_ppr_cb() in any case ? 2. How come handle_mm_fault() returns 0 in cases (2) and (3) ? Or in other words, what is considered to be a success in handle_mm_fault() and is it visible to the user-space process ? Thanks, Oded