On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 01:27:49PM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 07, 2026 at 12:47:01PM -0700, Stanislav Kinsburskii wrote:
>
> > +int hmm_range_fault_unlocked_timeout(struct hmm_range *range,
> > + unsigned long timeout)
> > +{
> > + struct mm_struct *mm = range->notifier->mm;
> > + unsigned long deadline = 0;
> > + int locked, ret;
> > +
> > + if (timeout)
> > + deadline = jiffies + timeout;
> > +
> > + do {
> > + if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
> > + return -EINTR;
> > +
> > + if (timeout && time_after(jiffies, deadline))
> > + return -EBUSY;
>
> I really dislike there is a timeout here, HMM is supposed to be more
> deterministic. GUP doesn't have a timeout, what is this about?
It looks like you've moved the timeout processing related to the mmnu
notifier sequence from the callers into this helper. I'm fine with
that, but maybe add some comments that this timeout is helping
implement the mmu notifiers, and we do expect that the HMM part will
not timeout.
Though it is a little hard to see how your stated purpose of enabling
userfaultfd is going to work, aren't you pretty much guarenteed to hit
a timeout if the userfaultfd process is adversly scheduled? That's
going to end up broken.
So, maybe the deadline should be resetting after every handled fault?
ie the timeout really is only about the mmu notifier and we don't
count the time spent handling faults or walking?
Jason
